Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed
On 6/12/07, alex@pilosoft.com <alex@pilosoft.com> wrote: [ clip ]
If you disagree, and think that autoresponders are ok, I'll make sure to set one up just for you ;)
My argument is mostly social, in that we don't need, or want, the admins taking punitive positions on anything when the users can do it themselves.
Users can't remove others who have autoresponders from mailing list.
But they can killfile the most standard error messages "out of office" and sink people who are repeat offenders. But that's if they even post. This means that the vast majority of users are unaffected. All but a few. And some that haven't posted in years. How are they getting these messages?
To put it bluntly, along with that, don't you have anything better to do?
This is the top thing on my todo list. :)
How unfortunate. You mischaracterize the original debate you weren't present for, you infer that the SC is holding you back because of the AUP, you received no consensus on any changes, Randy brought this particular issue up at the meeting for about 5 seconds and consensus was challenged in that there was barely anyone in the room _and_ nobody has done any work to get anyone to participate, and you think this is empowerment to act? You act on an issue that affects about 5 people once every 2 years and you ignore the massive overload on the list of off topic posting? This would be called a step backwards. -M<
Sweet zombie jesus, this is the stupid thread that's ever, for lack of a better term, graced this list, and I think I was even party to the predecessor. I am eternally in your debt for bringing us this new low. - billn On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 6/12/07, alex@pilosoft.com <alex@pilosoft.com> wrote:
[ clip ]
If you disagree, and think that autoresponders are ok, I'll make sure to set one up just for you ;)
My argument is mostly social, in that we don't need, or want, the admins taking punitive positions on anything when the users can do it themselves.
Users can't remove others who have autoresponders from mailing list.
But they can killfile the most standard error messages "out of office" and sink people who are repeat offenders. But that's if they even post. This means that the vast majority of users are unaffected. All but a few. And some that haven't posted in years. How are they getting these messages?
To put it bluntly, along with that, don't you have anything better to do?
This is the top thing on my todo list. :)
How unfortunate. You mischaracterize the original debate you weren't present for, you infer that the SC is holding you back because of the AUP, you received no consensus on any changes, Randy brought this particular issue up at the meeting for about 5 seconds and consensus was challenged in that there was barely anyone in the room _and_ nobody has done any work to get anyone to participate, and you think this is empowerment to act? You act on an issue that affects about 5 people once every 2 years and you ignore the massive overload on the list of off topic posting?
This would be called a step backwards.
-M<
On 6/13/07, Bill Nash <billn@billn.net> wrote:
Sweet zombie jesus, this is the stupid thread that's ever, for lack of a better term, graced this list, and I think I was even party to the predecessor.
I am eternally in your debt for bringing us this new low.
Don't worry, Bill. Your off topic spew will never be beat. This was an error in auto completion. Plain and simple. http://atm.tut.fi/list-archive/nanog/msg37551.html Please, by all means, carry on. Cheers, -M<
On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
You act on an issue that affects about 5 people once every 2 years and you ignore the massive overload on the list of off topic posting?
While I mostly agree with what you are saying, it doesn't hurt to be honest about reality here. I get between 6 and 12 "vacation" responses for every post I write on this list. I'm sure everyone else does too. That's not 5 people every 2 years. Second: off-topic while dear to my heart to stop, is harder to gain consensus on. Even harder to get consensus on what the right answer would be. Everyone agrees that autoresponders are bad, and the solution is very simple. Since the situation is simpler, sometimes its easier to focus on something like that and get it done. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
You act on an issue that affects about 5 people once every 2 years and you ignore the massive overload on the list of off topic posting?
While I mostly agree with what you are saying, it doesn't hurt to be honest about reality here. I get between 6 and 12 "vacation" responses for every post I write on this list. I'm sure everyone else does too. That's not 5 people every 2 years.
Second: off-topic while dear to my heart to stop, is harder to gain consensus on. Even harder to get consensus on what the right answer would be.
Everyone agrees that autoresponders are bad, and the solution is very simple. Since the situation is simpler, sometimes its easier to focus on something like that and get it done.
Is ignoring 6-12 messages really that hard? I can't imagine that anyone on this list really ignores less than 60 emails daily. Yes, if a machine could know what is a waste of your time, it would save a fraction of human time that it takes to press the next button. But if a machine could know that, I can think of a lot better ways I'd task it. However, a tremendous amount of time is wasted just by discussing these sorts of "small" problems. Plenty of people contribute to nanog daily and don't feel the need to complain about it. It seems to me, the ones who contribute in spurts sometimes separated by months seem to have to less to complain about. That said, a very simple way to handle it is to separate your mail (whether its procmail, a separate mailbox, a + rule in your name, or what have you) to automatically catch these "horrible" autoresponders into a box that doesn't clutter your critical mail. I think that's how most of us do it. I think someone suggests the above everytime a discussion comes up. In the spirit of "a very simple solution", everyone can be their own dictator of their own mailbox -- they don't need to protect the rest of the list, or develop a consensus for change. Just fix it for yourself. This is a time-honored NANOG tradition, at least when it comes to email. Deepak Jain AiNET
[please note - followups are set to nanog-futures, this doesn't belong to nanog-list. respect the reply-to header and reply to nanog-futures ] On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Deepak Jain wrote:
However, a tremendous amount of time is wasted just by discussing these sorts of "small" problems. Plenty of people contribute to nanog daily and don't feel the need to complain about it. It seems to me, the ones who contribute in spurts sometimes separated by months seem to have to less to complain about. a) Talking often is not a measure of contribution to community.
b) If we tolerate the annoying bounce emails, it doesn't mean we shouldn't fix the issue.
That said, a very simple way to handle it is to separate your mail (whether its procmail, a separate mailbox, a + rule in your name, or what have you) to automatically catch these "horrible" autoresponders into a box that doesn't clutter your critical mail. I think that's how most of us do it.
I think someone suggests the above everytime a discussion comes up. In the spirit of "a very simple solution", everyone can be their own dictator of their own mailbox -- they don't need to protect the rest of the list, or develop a consensus for change. Just fix it for yourself. This is a time-honored NANOG tradition, at least when it comes to email. In the sense that a time-honored network engineering tradition is "let others figure out how to deal with my broken routers/email clients/etc", maybe. But I don't think its a good tradition to keep ;)
-alex
On Jun 26, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
That said, a very simple way to handle it is to separate your mail (whether its procmail, a separate mailbox, a + rule in your name, or what have you) to automatically catch these "horrible" autoresponders into a box that doesn't clutter your critical mail. I think that's how most of us do it.
Wow. Dude. Filtering my mail into folders? Gee, what a keen new idea you have there! I've only been doing that for... lets put it this way, UUCP was the primary mail transport when I first started doing that. Why oh why do people post nonsense like this on a list supposed to be full of operators?
I think someone suggests the above everytime a discussion comes up. In the spirit of "a very simple solution", everyone can be their own dictator of their own mailbox -- they don't need to protect the rest of the list, or develop a consensus for change. Just fix it for yourself. This is a time-honored NANOG tradition, at least when it comes to email.
No. What you are suggesting is that I waste a minute or two for every ignorant or uncaring person on this list. I don't have that kind of time. This is supposed to be an operators list. If you can't meet a very simple baseline guide for not being an idiot, you should be removed from the list. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
I think someone suggests the above everytime a discussion comes up. In the spirit of "a very simple solution", everyone can be their own dictator of their own mailbox -- they don't need to protect the rest of the list, or develop a consensus for change. Just fix it for yourself. This is a time-honored NANOG tradition, at least when it comes to email.
No. What you are suggesting is that I waste a minute or two for every ignorant or uncaring person on this list. I don't have that kind of time. This is supposed to be an operators list. If you can't meet a very simple baseline guide for not being an idiot, you should be removed from the list.
"There are two buttons on my desk. One supplies power to your homes. The other unleashes the hounds." Counterpoint, you're suggesting what will ultimately denigrate into an assault on mistakes and absent-mindedness, as people with nothing better to do make periodic examples of people who screw up. Both lists would be better served with an automated monthly reminder of what's cool, what isn't, and flavor-of-the-month etiquette suggestions. Averaged over a year, that's 12 posts I can filter with the vague hope that other people will pay attention to it and self-police, compared to the vitriolic spew that will ensue once hunting season is declared. - billn PS. Also periodic exploding squirrel updates. I like those.
On Jun 26, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Bill Nash wrote:
Counterpoint, you're suggesting what will ultimately denigrate into an assault on mistakes and absent-mindedness, as people with nothing better to do make periodic examples of people who screw up.
I didn't much care for the original proposal. I never said a single thing in support of it, so please apologize for putting words in my mouth. I disagreed with a number of arguments against it, and those are what I addressed. In my opinion the community would be better served by paying someone to spend half an hour each day (at most) to unsubscribe the people who spew autoresponder junk. 1. It adds zero off-topic traffic to the list. 2. It forces the person to take action to re-subscribe, so they won't be able to ignore it. 3. Many may not bother to resubscribe, and their presence won't be missed. Very simple, very straightforward, very minimal impact. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550
participants (5)
-
Alex Pilosov -
Bill Nash -
Deepak Jain -
Jo Rhett -
Martin Hannigan