bed_gdg@SHSU.BITNET ("George D. Greenwade") (03/05/91)
On Mon, 04 Mar 1991 13:01:04 CST, Harry Flowers <FLOWERS@MEMSTVX1.BITNET> posts in response to a semi-flame war which is otherwise becoming destructive on the list. As list owner, I feel it is my responsibility to answer and explain some dimensions which will (hopefully) calm things down. I request that any comments regarding this post be directed specifically to me (BED_GDG@SHSU.BITNET and not to INFO-TeX). >>To whoever is in charge of this list: >> >>I have been receiving a small but steady stream of contentless >>messages, consisting mostly of administrative messages which, like this >>one, should not have gone out to the entire list. > > This is life with unmoderated lists. I also belong to INFO-VAX, and they > are somewhat less polite with people who send these requests to the list > rather than the administrative address. Basically, the people who do it > are ignorant of the correct procedures, and consequently look like idiots. It appears that more than a few subscribers are new to e-mail (I know at least 25 are as they have corresponded directly to me about some aspects of e-mail). While I agree with Harry that administrative requests are largely due to ignorance, I will hold until the day I (or INFO-TeX) die that ignorance is acceptable, provided it is not repetitive. That is why the delete option exists in mail. Also, this is why I have the Routine Message -- maybe it needs to go out more often? > With BITNET, administrative mail is sent to the LISTSERV. With Internet, > it is usually sent to <list>-Request where "<list>" is the list name. I > believe that either form will work with INFO-TeX, though the list owner > seems to prefer that mail be sent to the LISTSERV address. It is true that we support both addresses; **HOWEVER**, the reason the -Request address is not mentioned is due to BITNET's limitation on 8-character names. If your mailer is talking to my mailer, 8-character names are not a limitation; if you don't have a mailer, it is highly likely that somewhere, INFO-TeX-xxxxxxx (I refuse to give out the -Request address!) 12345678 will get abended to its first 8 significant characters and will be relayed to INFO-TeX. This is a limitation of VM-based systems which BITNET is built around (and needs correction, but the powers that be with VM see it as no problem -- hopefully the new network bringing together BITNET into true Internet compatibility will fix this; until then, I will only tell of LISTSERV for administrative things). On a related note -- if you have sent in a signoff (to LISTSERV!) and got a message that it wasn't taken care of automatically, THE MESSAGE WILL GET FORWARDED TO ME. It is possible that you are on a different node of a system than you are subscribed under, or that I am getting your BITNET address on the request and you are subscribed under your Internet equivalent (or vice versa). No one will be held hostage to this list -- I will make every honest effort to remove you from the list once I am aware you want off. > The problem is not with the list owner, but the list users. To get the > rapid turnaround time of an unmoderated list, you have to depend on your > subscribers to behave in a civilized and polite list manner. > > Please don't blame the list owner. Thanks, Harry (and others who have previously suggested this both on the list and privately). If anyone can think of a better "Welcome to INFO-TeX" message, a better Routine Message, knows of a primer I should send or make available to everyone upon subscribing, etc., please let me know! As list owner, I should be responsible to see that everyone knows what "civilized and polite list" behavior is! This is a responsibility I do not take lightly. >> However, the last >>straw was a message I just received that apparently was an automatic >>"I'm not home" message generated by someone's mailer in response to a >>message sent to the list. I suppose that message was in turn sent out >>to that same person, whose mailer will then generate another "I'm not >>home" message, that will then be sent out to the list... > > If "vacation" or other automated response mail is employed, you should > always unsubscribe to any lists first. One way to cut down on this is > by not having the return address as the list address, a (bad?) change > that was recently made. Then, the senders of the messages are usually > annoyed instead of the entire list. Also, having responses go to the > poster and having the poster summarize them generally works better, esp. > if the original problem is of limited general interest. Agreed! The reason I put INFO-TeX on reply to list was to expand the horizons of answers being generated. We were seeing far too few replies to questions -- questions which may have limited interest now, but not always. Additionally, I hope that the INFO-TeX archives can serve as a basis for future searches on information, so the more we can get, the better. Naturally, if a large number of you suggest that the reply-to decision was indeed "bad", I can change it back in a matter of minutes (again, please reply privately if you wish to give input on this). >>This has made me realize that I do not want to belong to a mailing >>list that is not filtered by a human being. So, please remove me from >>the INFO-TeX list. > > This is an example of an administrative request being made to the list > instead of the administrative address(es). Since you are not tolerant > of like requests, moderated lists or digests (like TeXHaX) would probably > better suit you. But I'll miss possibly reading responses from: > >>Leslie Lamport > > Thanks for LaTeX. Even if you won't say how to pronounce it... ;-) In defense of ll -- I asked him if he would like to join as a subscriber. I am responsible for the first contact, as well as subscribing him when he agreed to be a listener on this bandwidth. I, too, lament his leaving (as well as a few others), but believe firmly that the list (with the addition of still more subscribers since all of this began) can be a significant resource conducive to TeX-related problem solving. If there is anything you would like to pass along to me on this, please do so (privately, to BED_GDG@SHSU.BITNET -- do *not* reply to INFO-TeX). It is my desire to make this a good resource -- one to help *you*. In the meantime, let's please drop this thread of discussion and let's move on to some TeX topics. I apologize for whatever you think I should be apologizing for. At the same time, I value each and every subscriber and thank each of you for the interest you have shown in INFO-TeX and our related services. Regards, George %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. Bitnet: BED_GDG@SHSU Department of Economics and Business Analysis THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG P. O. Box 2118 Voice: (409) 294-1266 Sam Houston State University FAX: (409) 294-3612 Huntsville, TX 77341 Internet: bed_gdg%shsu.decnet@relay.the.net %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
cczdao@mips.nott.ac.uk (David Osborne) (03/07/91)
George, I've read the flames about admin messages being posted, and sympathise with both your position as list-maintainer as well as those aggrieved by the postings. However, since you gateway all the INFO-TeX articles into comp.text.tex, more than just the subscribers to your list are being inconvenienced, but the readers of the already-established comp.text.tex. It would be better for you to create a new USENET newsgroup, say, bitnet.info-tex, to gateway your list's traffic into, as is done with many other BITNET lists. That way, existing comp.text.tex readers, who were happy with the list the way it was, can continue reading it undisturbed, and can read your new list if they choose. Remember, we comp.text.tex readers are unable to unsubscribe from your list, since we're not on it! --dave (David Osborne, UKTeX Digest editor && member of Aston TeX Archive group)
cczdao@mips.nott.ac.uk (David Osborne) (03/07/91)
George, I've read the flames about admin messages being posted, and sympathise with both your position as list-maintainer as well as those aggrieved by the postings. However, since you gateway all the INFO-TeX articles into comp.text.tex, more than just the subscribers to your list are being inconvenienced, but the readers of the already-established comp.text.tex. It not be better for you to create a new USENET newsgroup, say, bitnet.info-tex, to gateway your list's traffic into, as is done with many other BITNET lists. That way, existing comp.text.tex readers, who were happy with the list the way it was, can continue reading it undisturbed, and can read your new list if they choose. Remember, we comp.text.tex readers are unable to unsubscribe from your list, since we're not on it! --dave (David Osborne, UKTeX Digest editor && member of Aston TeX Archive group)