Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(December 2001)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: More changes
From: Tom Neff <tneff @ panix . com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:33:13 -0500
To: list-managers @ greatcircle . com
Cc: Tim Pierce <twp @ rootsweb . com>
In-reply-to: <20011219170953 . K16103 @ ma-1 . rootsweb . com>
References: <20011219170953 . K16103 @ ma-1 . rootsweb . com>

--On Wednesday, December 19, 2001 5:09 PM -0500 Tim Pierce <twp @
rootsweb .
com> wrote:
Brent Chapman posted a very prompt, informative and penitent
explanation in response to your recent whinging.

Yes - I now know that he did because another member forwarded it to me, and my thanks to Brent for at least letting us after I "whinged."

However, in what I assume was another artifact of the transition process, Brent's message did not appear in either the "V1 #1" digest that was emitted Monday, or the V10 #181 digest that was emitted yesterday, so I didn't see it until this afternoon.

There appears to
be something wrong with the Mhonarc archives of this list, but you
can find his message in
http://www.greatcircle.com/lists/list-managers/archive/list-managers.2001
12.

That URL is now crisply up to date; but when I checked it this morning before posting (being long used to SLDS, or "since last Digest syndrome") it still stopped on December 19th. I'm glad it's back.

I've had a couple of absolutely splenetic backchannel responses to my posting, which only proves that it takes all kinds to run the world of lists I guess :), but I just want to point out that this is all an excellent example of real world list management risks and problems.

If I had told the list "Hey, I've been thinking of taking PORCELAIN-FIGURINES-L over to Majordomo2, what's the procedure" you would have been full of very sensible advice, including notifying the members of the upcoming switchover, making sure I understood how to preserve settings and numbering, letting people know once it's done, making sure they had a working address to reach me at in case of problems, etc. (None of which was done correctly here.)

Also, if I had performed a similarly bumpy list transition for Jules-Verne-Lovers Digest, with none of the above advice followed, so that lots of listmembers woke up to strange stuff in their mailboxes, and if one of those Jules Verne lovers had the audacity to mention it on the list and say "what in the name of Nautilus and Nemo is going on??" and I came here and told the list "naturally, I blocked that guy at the sendmail level," you would have told me I needed to enroll in anger management courses (with a double major in clues) pronto. But if I raise the same question about THIS list, I hear sendmail-level blocking seriously suggested from people who are, I assume, entrusted with real members out there somewhere. Gives ya a chill.

Related: I am somewhat curious to know why MJ2 does nothing to identify itself, or the list, in the headers, beyond the configurable [bracketed] subject prefix. Are they trying to masquerade as individual mail to get past spam blocks? Is this configurable? I confess I never learned the package, presumably this is answerable. I would suggest that if it is configurable, managers (including this one) should turn on some header ID.



Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: More List-Managers silentl changes
From: Tim Pierce <twp @ rootsweb . com>
Next: Re: also
From: Tom Neff <tneff @ panix . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: More List-Managers silentl changes
From: Tim Pierce <twp @ rootsweb . com>
Next: Re: More changes
From: SRE <eckert @ climber . org>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com