Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!SHSU.BITNET!bed_gdg From: bed_gdg@SHSU.BITNET ("George D. Greenwade") Newsgroups: comp.text.tex Subject: Enough is enough is .... Message-ID: <009451b3.c19154a0.25718@SHSU.BITNET> Date: 4 Mar 91 20:14:55 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: INFO-TeX@SHSU.BITNET Lines: 129 On Mon, 04 Mar 1991 13:01:04 CST, Harry Flowers 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 -Request where "" 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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%