On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:56 -0700, jdebert wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:33:04 +0100
> Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> > > > > Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but
> > > > > they don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > Your assumption, the list moderators (aka owner, me being one of
> > > > them) would simply and silently obey and dutifully do the
> > > > un-subscription for them, is flawed. ;)
> > >
> > > This assumption is unwarranted. I did not say that.
> >
> > You said that the unsubscribe-to-list posting user would not learn and
> > get lazy, when those posts get redirected to the owner rather than
> > hitting the list.
>
> Not exactly what I said.
In the part you snipped of my previous post, I asked you to explain what
you did mean, if not what I discussed in detail.
This response is not helpful, neither constructive.
> > Not learning: False. As I said, moderators would respond with
> > explanation and instructions. In particular learning about his mistake
> > and how to properly (and in future) unsubscribe, does make him learn.
> > Since we'd not just unsub him, the user will even have to proof that
> > he learned, by following procedures unsubscribing himself.
>
> False as evidenced by how the same people repeat the same thing on
> the same list and on other lists. Got it.
Show me an example of one subscriber repeating this mistake on this
list.
Show me an example of one subscriber repeating this mistake on this
list, after the proposed and discussed "redirect to owner" procedure is
in effect, which is meant to help with the issue.
You cannot possibly show the latter, since it is not yet in effect. So
there is no "evidence" as you just claimed. Moreover, there is
absolutely no basis to your "evidence" claim, that directly approaching
those subscribers by moderators would not make them learn.
You'll have a really hard time showing the first, too.
Got it. (Not a native English speaker, what's that supposed to mean in
the context of your quote? Equivalent of a foot-stomp?)
> > Getting lazy: People are lazy. But since there's absolutely nothing we
> > would simply do for them, there's no potential in the process to get
> > lazy over. They will have to read and understand how to do it. And
> > they will have to follow every step of the unsub procedure themselves.
>
> The long form of saying we're agreed. And one of the reasons to
> automate the process.
Fun research project for you in strong favor of automation: How many
such posts did this list get in the last month? Statistically irrelevant
spike. Last 6 months? Last year? Two years?
I am a moderator of this list. I do know that handling those bad unsub
requests manually would be barely noticeable compared to the general
moderation load. Which isn't high either.
> > > Did you read the rest of the message?
> >
> > Yes. And quite frankly, "catching unsub messages and bouncing them
> > with a note" as you mentioned is almost identical to the proposed
> > "redirect them to owner" to handle it. With the latter involving
> > moderators, having the advantage, that we can and will offer
> > additional help if need be.
>
> Having the listserver catch the messages and handle them is
> "almost identical" to redirecting them to the owner for manual
> handling? I could see that if list owners still managed lists
> manually. But there's this nifty new software that manages lists
> automatically, freeing the list owners from all that drudge work.
I am very sorry, but it appears you have absolutely no clue what nursing
mailing lists today means.
Yes, all subscription (and un-subscription) is handled automatically. No
owner intervention, not even notices. Automation.
What we mostly do face is posts by non-subscribers. Mostly spam (just
ignore), but also a non-negligible amount of valid posts by
non-subscribers, or list-replies by subscribers using a wrong address.
The latter outweighs by far the amount of non-subscribers.
Unsub posts to the list? About the same as non-subscriber posts. Very
limited. Almost negligible, if some rare samples won't trigger an
on-list shitstorm.
With the proposed process in place, I would have spent less lime
managing and resolving the last 12 months' bad unsub requests, than it
took me arguing with you about something that really does not concern
you.
> Your assumption is that I am telling you to do all this manually. You
> seemed to be ambivalent about this, not preferring to do it manually but
> seeming to prefer to do it manually.
No. I know from experience that doing this manually is the easiest,
least time consuming solution.
And with no word did I imply you are telling me to do all this manually.
Quite the contrary.
> My assumption was expecting it to occur to everyone that it might be
> done automatically. I really did not expect to have to write to
> ISO-9002 standards on a user list.
Exactly, *might*. Not the best solution in this case.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
