Well said, and while I still disagree on several points, I'll take it off-list - as we're in a recursive loop of off-topic discussion of off-topic discussion!
At 09:00 AM 02-18-2003, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> This is strictly a qmail problem. it has zippo to do with vpopmail.Paul Theodoropoulos
> Answering this question only encourages further abuse of the list.
Agreed, but disagreed at the same time. :-)
> sorry, i'm not directly flaming Andrew, i'm flaming the concept of
> indiscriminate 'help', which is not help, it's a crutch. are there really
> that many people online who don't know how to spell g-o-o-g-l-e?
I do agree on this point. Google is always my first line of defense and,
interestingly enough, the first hit off of "qmail move queue" is relavent,
although not detailled.
At least to me, qmail and vpopmail are inseparable. I don't remember the last
time I've run qmail without vpopmail running right on beside it, even in
single-domain systems where mail user also has a unix account.
As far as list abuse goes -- lists are here to facilitate people helping
people. Period. qmail is directly related to vpopmail (or vice-versa) so
throwing out a quick help for something not directly vpopmail but very likely
been solved by someone using vpopmail is not list abuse, IMO. Why should I
be subscribed to the (higher traffic) qmail list when everyone on vpopmail is
also running qmail and it a quick answer does not significantely lower the
signal-to-noise ratio? When the thread carries on (how can I hide my IP,
anyone?) and it's clearly nowhere related to the official list subject or
even to qmail now, _then_ it should be gently moved offlist. Hell I'm not
getting any feedback on my vpopmail-postgres in 5.3.16 questions so why not
help someone else out while waiting? :-)
Indiscriminately telling people "go there and try" is a little cold in my
opinion, especially since it's so closely related to the list subject and you
already know the answer.
My father used to do something similar to me -- "What's [insert word here]
mean?" "Go look it up." -- He knew the answer, and it would have taken less
energy and effort to just tell me in a single sentence or two, but instead he
made me go look it up -- what did it teach me? Virtually nothing. His
theory was that by looking it up I'd remember it but that's got no basis in
reality. I already knew how to do research (and was quite good at it) and
how to operate a dictionary, but if I was in the middle of a good book or
something it was more of a waste of time and laziness on both our parts to
have to go look it up. I have three children of my own now and that's one
thing I am certainly not going to do to them.
Now if you replied with the answer and said "the resources are over here and
there, and this really isn't on-topic" -- that's different. You've given the
answer, provided links and it's now in the archives so that anyone else who
comes and searches (which the OP apparently didn't do, and I didn't realize)
will find the answer. The end result: The list helps not only the OP but
anyone coming afterward who practices a it of ettiquite before
indiscriminately asking questions.
Yeah it's more work on the answerer's part but really the point is moot -- if
you're going to spend a minute to reply, why not spend two and reply with an
answer that will help more than just the one person?
So no flame from this side -- just another side to what we both see as a
(potential) problem. :-)
Regards,
Andrew
http://www.anastrophe.com
http://folding.stanford.edu
The Nicest Misanthrope on the Net
