Spam and junk to [mat-wg] list.
Hi, Gert Doering wrote:
Over in the address policy WG, we just unsubscribe everyone who sends back autoreplies to mailing list articles. Works wonders.
That wont work on mat-wg, Gert, because Daniel changed the list configuration to let anybody (even unsubscribed addresses) post. The wg was not consulted first. :-( Maybe this can be fixed and lessons learned ? Andy
On 31.05 14:13, Andy Davidson wrote:
Hi,
Gert Doering wrote:
Over in the address policy WG, we just unsubscribe everyone who sends back autoreplies to mailing list articles. Works wonders.
That wont work on mat-wg, Gert, because Daniel changed the list configuration to let anybody (even unsubscribed addresses) post. The wg was not consulted first. :-(
Andy, I usually do not respond to threads like this because doing so further reduces S/N. My mail filter mostly suppresses such messages anyway. However since you decided to move an already off-topic and only marginally useful debate to the personal level I need to respond: The change intended to lower the barrier for feedback about our tools to this list. The rationale: it is quite counter-productive to ask people to provide feedback and then bounce it immediately requiring them to subscribe to a mailing list. I notified the WG chairs about this and they agreed to it. All this was done in prep for the RIPE meeting on very short notice. We will take more time for such changes in the future.
Maybe this can be fixed and lessons learned ?
What fix do you propose? How would that fix have prevented the messages concerned? How would that fix provide a low threshold for feedback about tools to this list? Daniel
On 31.05 14:13, Andy Davidson wrote:
Hi,
Gert Doering wrote:
Over in the address policy WG, we just unsubscribe everyone who sends back autoreplies to mailing list articles. Works wonders.
That wont work on mat-wg, Gert, because Daniel changed the list configuration to let anybody (even unsubscribed addresses) post. The wg was not consulted first. :-(
Andy,
I usually do not respond to threads like this because doing so further reduces S/N. My mail filter mostly suppresses such messages anyway. However since you decided to move an already off-topic and only marginally useful debate to the personal level I need to respond:
The change intended to lower the barrier for feedback about our tools to this list. The rationale: it is quite counter-productive to ask people to provide feedback and then bounce it immediately requiring them to subscribe to a mailing list.
I notified the WG chairs about this and they agreed to it. All this was done in prep for the RIPE meeting on very short notice. We will take more time for such changes in the future.
My co-chairs and I have been discussing this and we would like to clarify
On 31 May 2011 14:50, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote: the conditions under which we agreed to the opening up of the list. As Daniel says, this was done at very short notice. Marketing materials using the list as the communication channel for the ideas generated by the Measurement BoF had already been printed for distribution at the meeting. Under the circumstances we felt it would be wrong of us to stand in the way of what could be useful and productive discussions, but we did register our concern at the way in which it the decision at been arrived at. Ian
Maybe this can be fixed and lessons learned ?
What fix do you propose? How would that fix have prevented the messages concerned? How would that fix provide a low threshold for feedback about tools to this list?
Daniel
participants (3)
-
Andy Davidson -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Ian Meikle