Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(December 1997)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers?
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:43:30 -0800
To: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc @ Graphics . Cornell . EDU>, Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Cc: List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM, mkc @ broccoli . graphics . cornell . edu
In-reply-to: <199712041705 . AA081975125 @ broccoli . graphics . cornell . edu>
References: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:32:17 PST." <v03110789b0abc5fbcae8 @ [207 . 167 . 80 . 70]>

At 9:05 AM -0800 12/4/97, Mitch Collinsworth wrote:

>Chuq, your argument make sense, at least as far as it goes.  The
>biggest problem I see with inventing yet more new list management
>interfaces is that users who experience them at one site then
>expect to find them at other sites.  I.e if foo-unsub @
 chuq .
 com works,
>why doesn't foo-unsub @
 mitch .
 com work?

That's why you make sure that you implement the core systems, and have all
of this as an option. And yes, there's some risk of confusing users, but
given the large number of variances among servers already, adding a bit
more variance just doesn't seem significant to me. If it does to you, don't
do it.... But between majordomo, listproc, listserv, letterip, etc, etc,
etc, etc, each with their own (sometimes ALMOST compatible) way of doing
things, we already have a problem.

so if we can come up with ideas that reduce complexity, maybe it'll lead
down the road to a new,  simpler way of doing this. Then it's just (hah!) a
matter of dragging people forward and getting them to use it.

In fact, foo-sub and foo-unsub aren't new to me, far from it.
Unfortunately, there's also foo-on and foo-off, and three or four other
variants, too.

There's no perfect solution here, since the real world situation is that we
can't just release a new version of the setup and expect it to be adopted.
So everyone has to make decisions on what they feel is best for their
users, with some eye on how that affects the rest of teh list world at
large (this latter part is why I'm religiously AGAINST processing admin
requests through the main posting address, as some servers, notably
ListStar, like to do. Because *that* encourages a behavior that really
screws over other list servers and lists, and it might help my list a bit,
but it hurts everyone else. The trick is to make your system better without
screwing others over, and then convincing others to come join you...)

Lots of this is judgement call -- for me, supporting the "standard"
majordomo system as the core command set is important, and then whatever I
can do to make life easier without hacking on that core system or causing
problems that ripple out and impact other sites in a bad way is fine. And
-sub and -unsub are pretty innocuous on that. It won't hurt existing
servers (ala the ListStar thing), and if a user tries it, it bounces. Not
great, but lots of stuff bounces. Hopefully they'll either go look at the
docs then, or email someone for help.

There are risks, but if you take no risks, you never get anywhere. Avoiding
risk isn't the proper attitude, but managing it....

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: An alternative to sp
From: dbsmith @ atbbs . com (David B. Smith)
Next: Re: An alternative to spamming?
From: "Manar Hussain" <manar @ ivision . co . uk>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Clueless subscribers?
From: jonathon <grafolog @ netcom . com>
Next: Re: Clueless subscribers?
From: claire @ siberia . demon . co . uk (Claire McNab)

Search Internet Search