[Theforum] quick change

[.jeff]

michele,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Michele Foster
>
>
> First of all, ALL of Admin used to have the task to
> administer thelist.  This is before and after the
> Austin trip last year.  Take a wild guess how many
> and which individuals actually DID the tasks?  (Dan
> of course could provide the answer for sure, but I'll
> say 4 as a pretty good bet.)  Now, why was that?
> Definitely not because the other 16 Admins at the
> time didn't have access.  No, it was because they
> didn't bother, or they figured other people were
> looking after it.  Ok, that's fine, fair assessment,
> since there *were* other individuals looking after
> the tasks.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

in all fairness, that's an inaccurate assessment.  not everyone had access
by virtue of membership to the admin list.  that access had been removed
from individuals *long* before austin.  if the admin archives were still
available i could point to happenings on thelist that prompted requests for
help on admin by admins to admins with thelist admin access (enough "admin"
in one sentence for ya).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Before Dan introduced the HTML auto-converted messages,
> on average there were anywhere from 6 to 20 HTML emails
> that used to come through the system on a daily basis.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

the issue is *not* about the feature that converts html email (though there
are some new annoyances introduced with that feature).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Does anyone remember the messages that used to come
> through with sigs attached?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

the issue is *not* about the feature the strips attachments either (though
there are annoyances with the way that works as well).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Also within the list management are keywords and email
> addresses which are held for approval.  Most of the
> time all the offending messages get caught and are not
> forwarded to thelist.  Unfortunately, the keywords from
> yesterday's email weren't in the phrase list.  [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

and sadly, that'll always be the case.

filtering based on keywords or phrases is reactive, not proactive.  that
means you can only fix the problem if one has been presented.  the only
solution that will truly work is to prevent messages from non-subbed
addresses.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Interestingly enough though, no one's brought up the
> point that ANYONE can subscribe to thelist, send out a
> message, then be unsubscribed either on their own or by
> an administrator.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

agreed.  however, that's  not something that's going to be done by a
spambot.  it's going to be done by an individual who'll have to give a valid
address.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Does anyone really think that we won't see ANY spam from
> now on just because we've locked thelist down to
> subscribers only?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

no, i don't think anybody thinks it will stop all spam.  however, it will
prevent the spam sent by people who have thelist address in their catalog of
"one million targeted and verified email addreses".

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I've personally been on many other high profile lists
> that got SPAM and such from subscribed people.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes, unfortunately it may still happen.  i've personally been on a number of
lists and received tens of thousands of messages a month and spam from
subscribers is almost non-existent.  when it does occur it's usually the
kind where the subscriber is pimping their own product or service -- not the
sort of xxx crap we saw on thelist yesterday.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I find it rather disturbing that Adrian and some other
> individuals did not take Dan's responses and reasons for
> wanting to leave the subscription base open.  What was
> the real problem?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

asked and answered as many times as it was dismissed.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Did you not understand the implications of doing this?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i can't speak for others, but i feel that i have a pretty good handle on the
implications and the current course of action, imo, was the best.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Did you not care that it would affect many members, not
> just a few as Adrian has continuously forced down our
> throats to believe?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

no one has come forward with any information to the contrary.  therefore,
why would there be any reason to think it'd more anything more than a few
members?

it's not about caring if members would be affected.  it's about caring that
some members are affected by the current situation.  it came down to
weighing which effect was worse.  subscribe-only posting won out over
convenience of posting from any address.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Adrian do *you* know the number of individuals affected?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

does *anybody* know the number of individuals affected?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Do *you* know how many list members would post from many
> different accounts?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

does anybody?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Do *you* know how many list members/users wanted the
> ability to post from wherever when they were having a
> quick problem and to be able to read the archives to
> get the help they needed?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

a counter to your question -- do you know how many members are even aware
that they can post from a non-subbed address?  the reason i ask is because
most discussion lists are setup to only allow posts from subbed addresses
for the very reasons we've now closed our lists.  so, i honestly don't think
most users knew they could do that.

even if they did, with posting limited to subbed addresses only, it's a
fairly simple matter of posting from wherever you are.  either get a free
email account and sub that when you're away from your own computer or use of
the many webmail sites out there to log in to your own email account that's
subbed to thelist and post from there.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> How are you (Adrian .. or we, evolt.org) going to have
> any kind of idea how many list subscribers there really
> are?  How in the world are we (evolt.org) ever going to
> hope to match those addresses with a userID on weo?
> User authentication for ueue was going to be difficult
> enough, now its going to be damn near impossible.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

in all fairness, this isn't even a reasonable issue to bring up for several
reasons:

1)  ueue is only a theory.  there's nothing
    implemented or even being worked on at the
    moment as far as i can tell
2)  before yesterday we didn't really know how
    many thelist subscribers there were.
    yesterday's change doesn't affect that
3)  before yesterday we couldn't match the
    subscribed addresses to weo userid's.
    again, yesterday's change doesn't affect
    that either.
4)  user authentication for ueue was already
    damn near impossible.  that's why we only
    have theoretical solutions.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I, personally, am filled with great sadness to know that
> this has not been thought through well enough and all of
> the repercussions taken into consideration.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

and i'm sad that the requests of many are viewed as grabs from power mongers
rather than legitimate requests for the good of the org.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I am also extremely disappointed that others refused to
> listen to what Dan was saying.  Others refused to trust
> Dan on the issue and let him continue to manage thelist
> the best way he can, finding solutions as needed to the
> problems at hand.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i listened.  the solutions proposed didn't solve the problems as thoroughly
as limiting posting to only subbed addresses.

this isn't about not trusting dan.  this isn't about letting or not letting
him continue to manage thelist.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Some might think Dan wasn't listening to the
> membership.... sorry, but unless you have those concrete
> numbers at hand, know how many people post from
> different addresses under different circumstances, and
> how many individuals' email clients represent their
> "from" addresses as something not of the ordinary,
> then you are misinformed and not looking at the bigger
> picture.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i'd suggest there's more to the bigger picture than the issues you cite.

until someone comes forward with the "concrete numbers" there's only
speculation based on things we know to be true.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> By assuming you (yes you Adrian) knew all the answers
> and knew how to fix the problem and that you personally
> decided to make it your vendetta to get the result you
> wanted, is insulting and demoralizing.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

and it's insulting and demoralizing to have a number of people have their
requests shot down or dismissed by one person.  this is a group effort.  if
the group decides to go one way they need the support from those with the
ability to facilitate going that way.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Instead of trusting the person who has put his guts and
> soul into making the best listserv software out there,
> [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

majorgumbo or mailman?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> So, we've all learned a good lesson.  What's next?  I
> *hate* the way the textareas are on weo.  Every time I
> visit weo, I'm going to bitch and complain to thesite
> until those textareas are fixed to my liking.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i hate them too.  and?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Irregardless of the fact that those responsible for the
> CSS/Code on weo have made excellent arguments why it
> can't be changed, I think its still a good idea to
> attack those individuals until they change them to the
> way I want them to be.  Yeah, I know I've got several
> other individuals that feel the same way and I can
> spout that the person responsible for the above isn't
> listening to the membership.  Yeah, bring it on!!  We
> all know temper tantrums work very well.  :(
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

rant all you like.  there isn't a workable solution yet.  until there is one
it isn't going anywhere.

(i know you're just trying to make a point and to you it seems most
appropriate because adrian suggested waiting on the textarea upgrade until
v3.0, but geeze).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Anyway, I've said more than enough.  If you've managed
> to read to the end of this message, congrats, have a
> beer on me.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i've eaten three guinness so far this morning.  i'll send ya a bill.

;p

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/