Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!vms.CIS.PITTSBURGH.EDU!Postmaster From: Postmaster@vms.CIS.PITTSBURGH.EDU (PMDF Mail Server) Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Undeliverable mail Message-ID: <8710290450.AA17719@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 10:43:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8710290450.AA17719 Posted: Mon Oct 26 10:43:00 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Nov-87 04:49:32 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 60 The message could not be delivered to: Addressee: 000426 Reason: %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user 10217_000426 at node CISVM2 ---------------------------------------- Received: from JNET-DAEMON by vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu; Mon, 26 Oct 87 01:05 EDT Received: From CMUCCVMA(MAILER) by PITTVMS with RSCS id 3753 for 000426@PITTVMS; Mon, 26-OCT-1987 00:30 EDT Received: by CMUCCVMA (Mailer X1.25) id 3751; Mon, 26 Oct 87 00:32:35 EST Date: 23 Oct 87 23:21:37 GMT From: Jamie Hanrahan Subject: Re: Q&A Technique (was: DEC Mail Utility Madness Again) Sender: INFO-VAX Discussion To: BETH DOE <000426@vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu> Reply-to: INFO-VAX@KL.SRI.COM Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was info-vax-request@kl.sri.com Comments: To: info-vax@kl.sri.com In the referenced article, Jerry Leichter writes: > And now, once more with feeling, a message to all who would ask questions on > the net: Please, please, DON'T assume you understand exactly where or what > your problem "really" is. If you did, you would most likely already know the > answer. Don't ask "How can I change my editor" when what you are trying to > do is change your initialization file! Describe the PROBLEM you are having, > NOT what you think the solution is, or ought to be. You are more likely to > get a useful response. Also, READ THE RESPONSES YOU GET. What you want to > do may be impossible! If your responses tend in that direction, don't assume > everyone is out to get you or is just ignoring your question. Maybe you > haven't phrased your question in way that can be answered. Maybe you haven't > provided all the information needed for someone to provide you with an answer. > Try again if you think you can provide more information - and take it as a > lesson in question phrasing for the next time. The instructor in me finds this attitude to be overly harsh. Let's turn it around: A message to all who would answer questions on the net: Please, please, DON'T assume you understand exactly what the asker's problem "really" is, just based on the text of the question. If the asker really understood the problem, s/he would most likely already know the answer, or would at least know where to start looking! Look past the question and address the PROBLEM the asker is having, not what they think the solutions are, or ought to be. You are more likely to write a useful response. If what the user wants to do is impossible, don't just say so; suggest a workaround. (If you don't know of a workaround, my advice is to keep quiet for a week or so; someone else may know of and post a workaround, and your "You can't do that, and there's no workaround" posting will cause confusion, unnecessary net traffic, and a diminishing of your credibility.) If the asker doesn't like the responses and posts a follow-up ("Yes, but"), take a good look at your (and others') responses. Maybe you haven't phrased your reply in a way that can be easily understood by someone who lacks your (presumably advanced) background. Maybe you haven't provided all the information needed for someone to understand your answer. Try again if you think you can provide more information - and take it as a lesson in answer phrasing for the next time.