Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

From: Martin Hannigan (no email)
Date: Tue Jun 12 2007 - 21:02:14 EDT

  • Next message: Martin Hannigan: "Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed"

    On 6/12/07, <> 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<


  • Next message: Martin Hannigan: "Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD