At 07:34 AM 2003-02-25 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 02:37 AM, Nick Simicich wrote:
At 07:38 AM 2003-02-24 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
How many times are we going to have this conversation? As I recally, you
also wanted it in red Helvetivca, at least 30 point. Eventually you
cried uncle when I delivered.
18, and no, I didn't. I simply read it when you sent it until you stopped.
I remembered you asking me to stop as an aside to some other message. I
can't find the message. I did find the 18 point message. I will assume
you are right and that I imagined it.
Please ignore Chuq: He is not serious when he claims he wants private
Please ignore Nick. he's lying. again.
Yep, my comment was uncalled for, and rude. It was based on my faulty
memory and I apologize for it. Chuq really does want the extra copies.
However, I still assert that it is rude to send (or cause to be sent)
multiple copies of the same e-mail to people who have not specifically said
that they want them. It is much easier for those people to generate the
extra copies that they want in their own in boxes and to flag the mail
(provided that people do not mung the References: lines) than it is for
other people to delete the extra copies, especially since the mailing list
copies are likely to arrive slower than the direct copies and all
that. Your assertion that it is up to people to fix their own incoming
mail rings like the spammer (although your mail is not spam, it just rings
the same way) who says, "Well, who cares how many copies I send you, if you
don't want to read the 20 copies of the spam I sent you to all of your
aliases and role accounts, you should just delete it. Just delete it, what
is the big deal.")
It is especially rude for a couple of people to assert that because they
want extra copies of mail that it is right to bombard people who have said
that they do not with extra copies of mail, or that it is normal or
acceptable to not fix up headers as a matter of course to delete extra
The claim that "people can fix up their incoming mail" is akin to but
opposite of a reasonable position that I believed you took regarding
e-postage. It is interesting for people to build these houses of cards
regarding these mail complexities, but when challenged to make them work,
it frequently ends up being just hand-waving and vast complexity --- these
things are not as simple as they seem.
As I searched my mail logs, I noted that any conversation I was in with you
had the same pieces of mail repeated twice. I got the ones from the
mailing list, which I signed up for, and the ones from you, whether or not
you were replying directly to me.
I thought about the problems with "undelivering" the mail I might have
gotten and mis-filed which came directly from you when the mailing list
mail came in. I guess that if my mail backing store was a database and I
was simply able to move the entries from table to table (or more likely, to
fix up the pointer records as the duplicate mail arrived) it would be
possible. And, of course, as we know well, just because the mail had the
same message id does not mean that the mail is interchangeable.
I came to the conclusion that your assertion that someone could fix up
their inbox based on mail arrival from multiple sources was interesting but
impractical. It is, of course, easy to filter individual messages as they
arrive, but it is somewhat harder to filter based on messages that have
arrived, and at least an order of magnitude harder to filter based on
messages that have not yet arrived, which is what I would actually have to
do to implement your suggestion.
The right thing to do is to not get the extra copies of the mail in the
first place. (The implementation that MJ2 does, to not send copies through
the mailing list when the mail has the potential recipient in the headers
is borked. The mail ends up not being filed in the mailbox with the
threads (unless one puts mail into mailing list threads based on the
assertion that someone else sent it there...whether or not it actually is
accepted and delivered by the mailing list manager. I get way too much
mail to want to break conversations across mailboxes.)
In any case, I assert that all polite people should ignore you and fix all
headers not to send extra private copies when they send responses. You can
do what you want.
The fact that you want extra copies should not stop people from doing the
SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel.
spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally
to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it
can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of
Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term
plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and
spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like
theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer?
Nick Simicich - njs @
com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html
Stop by and light up the world!