Dysfunction

[Guy Barry]

I saw "dysfunction" misspelt as "disfunction" in a shop window today, and
prided myself on my superior knowledge of the language.

Then I thought - "function" is Latin and "dys-" is Greek. Shouldn't it be
"disfunction" after all?

--
Guy Barry

[musika]

They could mean different things.
Dys - functioning badly
Dis - not functioning at all

--
Ray
UK

[Richard Tobin]

In article <Ovp7x.550608$xn.4...@fx18.am4>,

Is "dysfunction" any different from "malfunction"?

-- Richard

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:30:21 +0100, musika <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com>
wrote:

The OED has "disfunction" simply as variant of "dysfunction".

1927 Official Gaz. (U.S. Patent Office) 22 Nov. 788/1 Parke,
Davis & Company, Detroit, Michigan... Estrogen... Extract of gland
tissue for use in the treatment of various types of ovarian
disfunctions. Claims use since May 25, 1927.
1951 T. Parsons & E. A. Shils Toward Gen. Theory Action 35
Functional in one content but disfunctional in another.
1952 A. Koestler Arrow in Blue xviii. 169 Yet, as far as I know,
I have never had any glandular disfunction.
1959 P. Rieff Freud viii. 290 Freud thought only reason could
resolve this pull between social functions and disfunctions.
1969 Indian Mus. Jrnl. 5 72 The disfunction in the phylum
expressed in social interactions resultant from man's neurosis.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Robert Bannister]

On 22/05/2015 5:05 am, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:30:21 +0100, musika <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/05/2015 19:31, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> I saw "dysfunction" misspelt as "disfunction" in a shop window today,
>>> and prided myself on my superior knowledge of the language.
>>>
>>> Then I thought - "function" is Latin and "dys-" is Greek. Shouldn't it
>>> be "disfunction" after all?
>>>
>> They could mean different things.
>> Dys - functioning badly
>> Dis - not functioning at all
>
> The OED has "disfunction" simply as variant of "dysfunction".

I thought the latter was just another of those Dyson products that are
rarely seen outside posh hotels.


--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Steve Hayes]

Yes.

Malfunction means that something that used to work well no longer does
so because something is broken.

Dysfunction means that something doesn't perform the function that it
is meant to, by bad design, not by something breaking.

The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they work
badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

The old editors, which were functional, might malfunction if affected
by a virus or other malware.






--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Snidely]

On Thursday, Steve Hayes pointed out that ...

> On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:57:48 +0000 (UTC), ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>
>> In article <Ovp7x.550608$xn.4...@fx18.am4>,
>> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I saw "dysfunction" misspelt as "disfunction" in a shop window today, and
>>> prided myself on my superior knowledge of the language.
>>>
>>> Then I thought - "function" is Latin and "dys-" is Greek. Shouldn't it be
>>> "disfunction" after all?
>>
>> Is "dysfunction" any different from "malfunction"?
>
> Yes.
>
> Malfunction means that something that used to work well no longer does
> so because something is broken.
>
> Dysfunction means that something doesn't perform the function that it
> is meant to, by bad design, not by something breaking.
>
> The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they work
> badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
> ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

My OT response: You keep making that claim. I remain unconvinced.

> The old editors, which were functional, might malfunction if affected
> by a virus or other malware.

Not "infected"?

(viruses and malware typically don't meddle in editing functions,
although they might meddle in communication between the client and the
server, or between client and storage.)

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[Guy Barry]

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:cmhtladr7hhsq6gvf...@4ax.com...

>Dysfunction means that something doesn't perform the function that it
>is meant to, by bad design, not by something breaking.

So how do you explain "erectile dysfunction" then? That's the context where
I most often see it used - also "dysfunctional family" (which presumably
isn't designed that way).

--
Guy Barry

[Charles Bishop]

In article <cmhtladr7hhsq6gvf...@4ax.com>,

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:57:48 +0000 (UTC), ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>
> >In article <Ovp7x.550608$xn.4...@fx18.am4>,
> >Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>I saw "dysfunction" misspelt as "disfunction" in a shop window today, and
> >>prided myself on my superior knowledge of the language.
> >>
> >>Then I thought - "function" is Latin and "dys-" is Greek. Shouldn't it be
> >>"disfunction" after all?
> >
> >Is "dysfunction" any different from "malfunction"?
>
> Yes.
>
> Malfunction means that something that used to work well no longer does
> so because something is broken.
>
> Dysfunction means that something doesn't perform the function that it
> is meant to, by bad design, not by something breaking.
>
> The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they work
> badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
> ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
> The old editors, which were functional, might malfunction if affected
> by a virus or other malware.

I wouldn't say GG or Gm work badly /by/ design, which to means the
designers intended them to work badly. I would use /because/ of the
design which allows for errors in the design.

--
charles

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 23:31:16 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, Steve Hayes pointed out that ...
>> On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:57:48 +0000 (UTC), ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
>> (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <Ovp7x.550608$xn.4...@fx18.am4>,
>>> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I saw "dysfunction" misspelt as "disfunction" in a shop window today, and
>>>> prided myself on my superior knowledge of the language.
>>>>
>>>> Then I thought - "function" is Latin and "dys-" is Greek. Shouldn't it be
>>>> "disfunction" after all?
>>>
>>> Is "dysfunction" any different from "malfunction"?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Malfunction means that something that used to work well no longer does
>> so because something is broken.
>>
>> Dysfunction means that something doesn't perform the function that it
>> is meant to, by bad design, not by something breaking.
>>
>> The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they work
>> badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
>> ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
>My OT response: You keep making that claim. I remain unconvinced.

My conviction is reinforced every time I try ton reply to a message in
Gmail.

>> The old editors, which were functional, might malfunction if affected
>> by a virus or other malware.
>
>Not "infected"?

That too. But other malware might not infect.

>(viruses and malware typically don't meddle in editing functions,
>although they might meddle in communication between the client and the
>server, or between client and storage.)

[Steve Hayes]

The designers removed or hid certain functions so that they no longer
work. They worked in earlier versions.

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 10:36:47 AM UTC-7, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2015 23:31:16 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, Steve Hayes pointed out that ...

> >> The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they work
> >> badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
> >> ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> >
> >My OT response: You keep making that claim. I remain unconvinced.
>
> My conviction is reinforced every time I try ton reply to a message in
> Gmail.
>

And my impression is reinforced several, indeed dozens, of times daily.

I use GMail at work, at home, and frequently I use GG. Those editors are not broken.

/dps "gusty wind through the bus, I guess"

[snide...@gmail.com]

Now if you want a list of MS or Yahoo editors that work ....

/dps

[Guy Barry]

Oh for crying out loud. I appear to have started yet another thread that's
turned into a discussion about Google Groups and gmail - and PTD can't be
held responsible for hijacking this one.

Please can you go and take this stuff somewhere else?

--
Guy Barry

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 11:11:07 AM UTC-7, Guy Barry wrote:

> Please can you go and take this stuff somewhere else?

No.

/dps "and don't you need a comma in that?"

[Guy Barry]

Snidely wrote in message
news:f9d9ccf8-8bc5-4920...@googlegroups.com...

>
>On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 11:11:07 AM UTC-7, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> Please can you go and take this stuff somewhere else?
>
>No.

You know, one of the reasons why I like Web forums is that they're not
infested by these "turf wars" about what's the better newsreader, better
newsfeed, Web interfaces versus offline readers, etc. I can't speak for
anyone else but I'm starting to find the whole topic REALLY BORING. Can't
people concentrate on the subject-matter rather than how to access it?

--
Guy Barry

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:40:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>>> The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they work
>>> badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
>>> ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

>
>>My OT response: You keep making that claim. I remain unconvinced.
>
>My conviction is reinforced every time I try ton reply to a message in
>Gmail.

A good trick if you can do it. Gmail is an email program. Messages
here are not from email.


You respond to my posts, and I use gmail. You've never seen anything
from me sent by gmail, though.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Tony Cooper]

We all have things that bother us. I'm bothered, for example, by
people who constantly complain about what others post.

[Stan Brown]

Can I introduce a new convention, indicating that I disagree but
think it's not worth writing anything more?

-1

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Charles Bishop]

In article <XiK7x.799643$3i4.5...@fx29.am4>,

If it's you starting these threads, perhaps you're to blame?

--
charles, He----> did it

[Charles Bishop]

In article <VTK7x.429267$rk1....@fx44.am4>,

Sure. Will they though?

--
charles, might as well try to turn back (cross-thread) the tide.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <vj1vladnaq3rhseg7...@4ax.com>,

Or whether people are rude who reply to one's post.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <3iqulat5drsrgt098...@4ax.com>,

That's been my (somewhat limited) experience with most "upgrades" of
programs. I've had programs that I liked and they send out a newer
version that removes things I liked about the program and replaced them
with things I don't like so much.

"New and Improved" doesn't just apply to shampoo.

--
charles

[Peter Moylan]

On 23/05/15 09:51, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:30:21 +0100, musika wrote:
>>
>> On 21/05/2015 19:31, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> I saw "dysfunction" misspelt as "disfunction" in a shop window today,
>>> and prided myself on my superior knowledge of the language.
>>>
>>> Then I thought - "function" is Latin and "dys-" is Greek. Shouldn't it
>>> be "disfunction" after all?
>>>
>> They could mean different things.
>> Dys - functioning badly
>> Dis - not functioning at all
>
> Can I introduce a new convention, indicating that I disagree but
> think it's not worth writing anything more?
>
> -1

I've already used that today, in support of Katy's comment that it
wasn't worth bothering. (I've forgotten the exact words.)

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Guy Barry]

"Charles Bishop" wrote in message
news:ctbishop-1A98A4...@news.individual.net...

How? It was an English usage topic when I started it. I'm not responsible
for the direction in which others take the thread.

I note that no one has addressed the original point: why use the Greek
prefix "dys-" with the Latin-derived word "function"? There's some
discussion here:

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/45630/dysfunctional-vs-disfunctional

(I like the comment "Dysfunctional has dysfunctional spelling. It's
self-describing.")

The comment is made that 'dys- is a Greek prefix meaning "bad", "abnormal",
"difficult", or "impaired". dis- is a Latin prefix with none of the above
meanings.' Which is true; but then the appropriate formation is surely
"malfunction", and "dysfunction" is redundant.

--
Guy Barry

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:51:22 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:30:21 +0100, musika wrote:
>>
>> On 21/05/2015 19:31, Guy Barry wrote:
>> > I saw "dysfunction" misspelt as "disfunction" in a shop window today,
>> > and prided myself on my superior knowledge of the language.
>> >
>> > Then I thought - "function" is Latin and "dys-" is Greek. Shouldn't it
>> > be "disfunction" after all?
>> >
>> They could mean different things.
>> Dys - functioning badly
>> Dis - not functioning at all
>
>Can I introduce a new convention, indicating that I disagree but
>think it's not worth writing anything more?

The old convention is to say that it's a moot point.

[Steve Hayes]

That's what I said.

I said that they were dysfunctional, not that they had malfunctioned
(were broken).

[Steve Hayes]

The Yahoo editors are equally dysfunctional.

For Webmail I use a functional editor called Horde, which works like
the original YahooMail editor, before they defunctionalised it. It
still doesn't have all the functionality of the original YahooMail
editor, but it's much better than the current version.

I've never attempted to use MS editors for e-mail, so I wouldn't know
about them at first hand, though I did hear that there was something
called "Quotefix" that improved their functionality.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:11:06 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Oh for crying out loud. I appear to have started yet another thread that's
>turned into a discussion about Google Groups and gmail - and PTD can't be
>held responsible for hijacking this one.

No, it's on topic. Gmail is dysfunctional, and is therefore a goodf
example of what dysfunction means.

[Steve Hayes]

No, but if I did, and if I tried to reply to it in Gmail, I would have
great difficulty in doing so, because the current incarnation of Gmail
is dysfunctional.

I am not saying that Gmail is used to read or reply to newsgroups. I
am saying that it is an example of a dysfunctional program, and
therefore an illustration of the meaning of the term "dysfunction".

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 21:04:33 -0700, Charles Bishop

Quite, and that is what "dysfunctional" means, or at least one of the
things it means.

Computer fundis often use the term "functionality" about programs,
referring to the things the program can do.

When some of the functions are removed, then it has reduced
functionality, and can therefore be described as "dysfunctional" in
relation to the things that previous versions of the program could do,
but the present version can't.

[Peter Moylan]

So what's wrong with dysleitourya?

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Moylan" wrote in message news:mjpjds$5j0$1...@dont-email.me...

I googled for that and was asked "Did you mean 'dyslexia'".

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Moylan]

On 23/05/15 19:28, Steve Hayes wrote:
> The Yahoo editors are equally dysfunctional.
>
> For Webmail I use a functional editor called Horde, which works like
> the original YahooMail editor, before they defunctionalised it. It
> still doesn't have all the functionality of the original YahooMail
> editor, but it's much better than the current version.

The e-mail account that I set up for our choir has a webmail option, and
offers a choice of Horde, roundcube, and Squirrel. After a bit of
testing I decided that Horde was the best of the three. I don't use any
of them, though, because it's easier to get the mail with a conventional
mail client and ignore the inconvenient webmail options.

Meanwhile, the rest of the choir committee refuses to use any of the
four options, because none of them look like Yahoo mail. (Actually, only
one person uses that argument. The other three duck for cover when they
sense that she and I are disagreeing over a technical point.) As a
result the good solution remains idle, and we are stuck with a
user-unfriendly web interface and lost mail.

[The "lost mail" problem arises because Yahoo, apparently uniquely among
mail providers, refuses to let you read "bounce" messages when mail is
undeliverable. The basic problem is that yahoo addresses are often
blacklisted because of spam. Yahoo found that so embarrassing that it
decided, in violation of the SMTP standards, to suppress the
non-delivery messages.]

[Peter Moylan]

I'd like to respond to this from the viewpoint of a software developer.
(All of my software, previously shareware, is now freeware, mostly
because I want to be able to say "fix it yourself!" to the complainers.)
For any given program, I start out with what I think is a simple and
elegant solution. Then the feature requests start coming in. What the
requesters don't seem to understand is that every new bell and whistle
introduces new bugs. (A law that I might give my name to, but I suspect
that others have already noticed it.) I spend ages recovering from the
unintended side-effects of each new feature. What I would really like to
do is start to remove features.

A very major problem with software upgrades, I suggest, lies with the
people requesting the upgrades.

I am now learning to be hard-nosed. A month or so ago I decided to write
a web server.
http://pmoylan.org/pages/os2/webserve.html
This time, I announced it with the declared qualification that it is a
_light-weight_ server. This time, I said, any feature request that will
stop it from being light-weight will be ignored.

The feature requests, nevertheless, keep rolling in. The difference is
that this time I feel free to say NO.

[Peter Moylan]

Try Google Translate with "dysleitourgia". There's a problem
distinguishing Greek "g" and "y".

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Moylan" wrote in message news:mjpqcl$ujv$1...@dont-email.me...

>
>On 23/05/15 20:56, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Peter Moylan" wrote in message news:mjpjds$5j0$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> On 23/05/15 16:19, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>>>> The comment is made that 'dys- is a Greek prefix meaning "bad",
>>>> "abnormal", "difficult", or "impaired". dis- is a Latin prefix with
>>>> none of the above meanings.' Which is true; but then the appropriate
>>>> formation is surely "malfunction", and "dysfunction" is redundant.
>>>
>>> So what's wrong with dysleitourya?
>>
>> I googled for that and was asked "Did you mean 'dyslexia'".
>
>Try Google Translate with "dysleitourgia".

I did and it detected the language as Welsh. But yes, it's Greek for
"malfunction".

--
Guy Barry

[CDB]

On 23/05/2015 6:56 AM, Guy Barry wrote:

> "Peter Moylan" wrote:
>> Guy Barry wrote:

>>> The comment is made that 'dys- is a Greek prefix meaning "bad",
>>> "abnormal", "difficult", or "impaired". dis- is a Latin prefix
>>> with none of the above meanings.' Which is true; but then the
>>> appropriate formation is surely "malfunction", and "dysfunction"
>>> is redundant.

>> So what's wrong with dysleitourya?

> I googled for that and was asked "Did you mean 'dyslexia'".

I vote for "taking the piss, with a smidgen of Tourette and a drop of
toi itou".

[Charles Bishop]

In article <imh0mal1ba7a0jjii...@4ax.com>,

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 2015 10:50:53 -0700 (PDT), snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 10:49:35 AM UTC-7, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 10:36:47 AM UTC-7, Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 21 May 2015 23:31:16 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >On Thursday, Steve Hayes pointed out that ...
> >>
> >> > >> The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they
> >> > >> work
> >> > >> badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
> >> > >> ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> >> > >
> >> > >My OT response: You keep making that claim. I remain unconvinced.
> >> >
> >> > My conviction is reinforced every time I try ton reply to a message in
> >> > Gmail.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And my impression is reinforced several, indeed dozens, of times daily.
> >>
> >> I use GMail at work, at home, and frequently I use GG. Those editors are
> >> not broken.
> >>
> >> /dps "gusty wind through the bus, I guess"
> >
> >Now if you want a list of MS or Yahoo editors that work ....
>
> The Yahoo editors are equally dysfunctional.
>
> For Webmail I use a functional editor called Horde, which works like
> the original YahooMail editor, before they defunctionalised it. It
> still doesn't have all the functionality of the original YahooMail
> editor, but it's much better than the current version.

I am old and set in my ways and use some programs that I used years ago
rather than change, so if this is a question with an answer that should
be obvious, I apologize in advance.

Why do you use a Webmail email program, rather than what I think of as
an email program like Eudora? But first, I guess, is Webmail an email
program that uses a website to access and send email?

And, is

>
> I've never attempted to use MS editors for e-mail, so I wouldn't know
> about them at first hand, though I did hear that there was something
> called "Quotefix" that improved their functionality.

--

charles

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 11:36:30 +0200, Steve Hayes

<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 May 2015 15:41:05 -0400, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:40:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they work
>>>>> badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
>>>>> ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>>
>>>
>>>>My OT response: You keep making that claim. I remain unconvinced.
>>>
>>>My conviction is reinforced every time I try ton reply to a message in
>>>Gmail.
>>
>>A good trick if you can do it. Gmail is an email program. Messages
>>here are not from email.
>>
>>
>>You respond to my posts, and I use gmail. You've never seen anything
>>from me sent by gmail, though.
>
>No, but if I did, and if I tried to reply to it in Gmail, I would have
>great difficulty in doing so, because the current incarnation of Gmail
>is dysfunctional.

What are you talking about? You cannot read my posts using gmail.
There is no connection whatsoever between gmail and my posts.

The only way you could reply to one of my posts in gmail is to create
a gmail account and send me a gmail containing your reply. You could
add text comments, you could copy/paste messages into gmail, and you
could do anything else that any other email program does. But, you
cannot open a newsgroup post in gmail.

Do you not understand that gmail is not the same as GoogleGroups? That
gmail can be used by someone not using GoogleGroups? That there is no
problem in using gmail and no dysfunction in gmail?

>
>I am not saying that Gmail is used to read or reply to newsgroups. I
>am saying that it is an example of a dysfunctional program, and
>therefore an illustration of the meaning of the term "dysfunction".
--

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 21:03:37 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 23/05/15 19:28, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> The Yahoo editors are equally dysfunctional.
>>
>> For Webmail I use a functional editor called Horde, which works like
>> the original YahooMail editor, before they defunctionalised it. It
>> still doesn't have all the functionality of the original YahooMail
>> editor, but it's much better than the current version.
>
>The e-mail account that I set up for our choir has a webmail option, and
>offers a choice of Horde, roundcube, and Squirrel. After a bit of
>testing I decided that Horde was the best of the three. I don't use any
>of them, though, because it's easier to get the mail with a conventional
>mail client and ignore the inconvenient webmail options.

The webmail on my site offers those three options, and I too chiose
Hore as being the best editor.

I only use that address when away from home, and all incoming mail is
also forwarded to my regular address so I can save the messages with
my regular mail. If I'm travelling, and it's not urgent, I can then
reply to it when I get home.

(Subject line changed because we are no longer discussing
"Dysfunction")

>Meanwhile, the rest of the choir committee refuses to use any of the
>four options, because none of them look like Yahoo mail. (Actually, only
>one person uses that argument. The other three duck for cover when they
>sense that she and I are disagreeing over a technical point.) As a
>result the good solution remains idle, and we are stuck with a
>user-unfriendly web interface and lost mail.

The messages forwarded from Horde appear as regular mail in my usual
mail reader.

Messages forwarded from Yahoo used to appreat in the same way -- you
could choose to send the original message as an attachment and you
could then open the attachment and reply to it as if it had first come
to that address. But that function has been removed.

Yahoomail also used to let you put a signature at the end of the
message, but now it puts it at the beginning, and it no longer does
proper reply quoting, so I class it as unusable. Horde can still do
most of these things.

[Steve Hayes]

I too am old and set ijn my ways.

I like to begin my letters with a greeting and end them with a
signature. Yahoomail now forces me to begin my messages with a
signature.

I prefer

Dear Sir/Madam

<body of message>

Yours faithfully,

Dr Stephen T.W,. Hayes

to beginning with the "Yours faithfully" bit, which Yahoo-mail now
forces one to do.

>Why do you use a Webmail email program, rather than what I think of as
>an email program like Eudora? But first, I guess, is Webmail an email
>program that uses a website to access and send email?

I use webmail when travelling, for convenience.


In the past, when Yahoomail was functional and not dysfunctional, I
also used it to have a public address to which spam could (and would)
be sent. Then if any genuine mail was sent, I would forward it to my
regular e-mail address for reply, but as explained in my message in
response to OPeter Moylan, that function has also been removed from
YahooMail, so it is virtually useless. I still have the address, but
99.9% of the messages arriving there are spam. I check in about once
every 2 months to delete them.

[David Kleinecke]

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 2:32:50 AM UTC-7, Steve Hayes wrote:

> I am not saying that Gmail is used to read or reply to newsgroups. I
> am saying that it is an example of a dysfunctional program, and
> therefore an illustration of the meaning of the term "dysfunction".

I remain blissfully ignorant.

I use gmain constantly and it does everything I want to do easily
and rapidly.

What am I mssing?

Why do you think gmail is dysfunctional?

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 12:20:50 -0400, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 May 2015 11:36:30 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 15:41:05 -0400, Tony Cooper
>><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:40:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The GoogleGroups and Gmail editors are dysfunctional because they work
>>>>>> badly by design. They used to work well, but the people at Google
>>>>>> ignored the advice "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My OT response: You keep making that claim. I remain unconvinced.
>>>>
>>>>My conviction is reinforced every time I try ton reply to a message in
>>>>Gmail.
>>>
>>>A good trick if you can do it. Gmail is an email program. Messages
>>>here are not from email.
>>>
>>>
>>>You respond to my posts, and I use gmail. You've never seen anything
>>>from me sent by gmail, though.
>>
>>No, but if I did, and if I tried to reply to it in Gmail, I would have
>>great difficulty in doing so, because the current incarnation of Gmail
>>is dysfunctional.
>
>What are you talking about? You cannot read my posts using gmail.
>There is no connection whatsoever between gmail and my posts.

I never said there was a connection, and I *explicitly* said that
there was no such connection, so what are *you* takling about.

I said "No [I do not see anything from you sent by gmail], but if I
did [see anything from you sent by gmail, which I do not]" I would
have great difficulty in replying to it.

>The only way you could reply to one of my posts in gmail is to create
>a gmail account and send me a gmail containing your reply. You could
>add text comments, you could copy/paste messages into gmail, and you
>could do anything else that any other email program does. But, you
>cannot open a newsgroup post in gmail.

That's what I said. Why do you repeat it instead of replying to ti?

>
>Do you not understand that gmail is not the same as GoogleGroups? That
>gmail can be used by someone not using GoogleGroups? That there is no
>problem in using gmail and no dysfunction in gmail?
>
>
>>
>>I am not saying that Gmail is used to read or reply to newsgroups. I
>>am saying that it is an example of a dysfunctional program, and
>>therefore an illustration of the meaning of the term "dysfunction".

--

[Robert Bannister]

On 23/05/2015 5:20 pm, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:51:22 -0400, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:30:21 +0100, musika wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/05/2015 19:31, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> I saw "dysfunction" misspelt as "disfunction" in a shop window today,
>>>> and prided myself on my superior knowledge of the language.
>>>>
>>>> Then I thought - "function" is Latin and "dys-" is Greek. Shouldn't it
>>>> be "disfunction" after all?
>>>>
>>> They could mean different things.
>>> Dys - functioning badly
>>> Dis - not functioning at all
>>
>> Can I introduce a new convention, indicating that I disagree but
>> think it's not worth writing anything more?
>
> The old convention is to say that it's a moot point.
>
>

Well, that's debatable.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Peter Moylan]

On 24/05/15 10:43, Steve Hayes wrote:

> I like to begin my letters with a greeting and end them with a
> signature. Yahoomail now forces me to begin my messages with a
> signature.

The university I worked for tried to get me to use an abomination called
Groupwise. I spent ages trying to find a setting that would put my
signature at the bottom instead of the top. There was no such option,
but eventually I worked out what rule it was following. The signature
was placed before the first quoted material. It was acting as a marker
saying "You don't need to read past this point; it contains nothing but
the entire history of the exchange".

It worked for the IT division and for management, because they all
top-posted and never snipped the past history. It worked far less well
for the academics, who already knew how e-mail was supposed to work.

In the long run I found a way to have mail forwarded from Gropewise to a
real mail program. I only had to go into GW once every few months, to
delete the hundreds of messages that broke the system by putting me over
quota.

[Robert Bannister]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've heard "dysfunction". What I
mainly hear is "dysfunctional" - usually in conjunction with "families".
In other words, it's a sociologist's jargon term and therefore of little
value.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 02:53:24 +0200, Steve Hayes

No, you said "if I tried to reply to it in Gmail", meaning reply to a
post. If you don't think there's a connection, why would you say
this? And, above, you "every time I try to reply (to) a message in
Gmail". You can't, but thinking your could is thinking there is a
connection.

You talk about gmail as dysfunctional, but you don't say how. There's
nothing dysfunctional about gmail.

>
>I said "No [I do not see anything from you sent by gmail], but if I
>did [see anything from you sent by gmail, which I do not]" I would
>have great difficulty in replying to it.
>
>>The only way you could reply to one of my posts in gmail is to create
>>a gmail account and send me a gmail containing your reply. You could
>>add text comments, you could copy/paste messages into gmail, and you
>>could do anything else that any other email program does. But, you
>>cannot open a newsgroup post in gmail.
>
>That's what I said. Why do you repeat it instead of replying to ti?
>
>>
>>Do you not understand that gmail is not the same as GoogleGroups? That
>>gmail can be used by someone not using GoogleGroups? That there is no
>>problem in using gmail and no dysfunction in gmail?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I am not saying that Gmail is used to read or reply to newsgroups. I
>>>am saying that it is an example of a dysfunctional program, and
>>>therefore an illustration of the meaning of the term "dysfunction".

What is dysfunctional about it? You keep saying this, but not saying
what is dysfunctional.

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:csco7c...@mid.individual.net...

>Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've heard "dysfunction".

Not even after "erectile"? Seems to be the standard way that the condition
is referred to here (apart from various slang terms, of course). I think
the term "impotence" is seen as belittling.

--
Guy Barry

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 21:39:10 -0400, Tony Cooper

Some people move the goal posts, but in this case the goalposts have
not moved but you've nevertheless managed to score three own goals.

>You talk about gmail as dysfunctional, but you don't say how. There's
>nothing dysfunctional about gmail.

Send me a message in Gmail and I'll show you.

You can send it to haye...@gmail.com

>>I said "No [I do not see anything from you sent by gmail], but if I
>>did [see anything from you sent by gmail, which I do not]" I would
>>have great difficulty in replying to it.
>>
>>>The only way you could reply to one of my posts in gmail is to create
>>>a gmail account and send me a gmail containing your reply. You could
>>>add text comments, you could copy/paste messages into gmail, and you
>>>could do anything else that any other email program does. But, you
>>>cannot open a newsgroup post in gmail.
>>
>>That's what I said. Why do you repeat it instead of replying to ti?
>>
>>>
>>>Do you not understand that gmail is not the same as GoogleGroups? That
>>>gmail can be used by someone not using GoogleGroups? That there is no
>>>problem in using gmail and no dysfunction in gmail?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am not saying that Gmail is used to read or reply to newsgroups. I
>>>>am saying that it is an example of a dysfunctional program, and
>>>>therefore an illustration of the meaning of the term "dysfunction".
>
>What is dysfunctional about it? You keep saying this, but not saying
>what is dysfunctional.

Send me a message in Gmail and I'll show you.

You can send it to haye...@gmail.com

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:33:19 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 24/05/15 10:43, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> I like to begin my letters with a greeting and end them with a
>> signature. Yahoomail now forces me to begin my messages with a
>> signature.
>
>The university I worked for tried to get me to use an abomination called
>Groupwise. I spent ages trying to find a setting that would put my
>signature at the bottom instead of the top. There was no such option,
>but eventually I worked out what rule it was following. The signature
>was placed before the first quoted material. It was acting as a marker
>saying "You don't need to read past this point; it contains nothing but
>the entire history of the exchange".
>
>It worked for the IT division and for management, because they all
>top-posted and never snipped the past history. It worked far less well
>for the academics, who already knew how e-mail was supposed to work.

The university I worked for did the same thing.

Novell Netware used to have a mail option, but they dropped it in a
new version. We in the Editorial Department looked around for a
replacement and installed Pegasus Mail, and a thing called Brainstorm
that worked like an internal newsgroup server, though I don't think it
used NNTP.

When they extended the network to the whole university we recommended
Pegasus but the prioce wasn't right -- it offered no opportunities for
kickbacks for the people in the Computer Services Department, so they
got a thing called da Vicni instead.

Eventually even they realised that it was dysfunctional so the
switched to Groupwise, which was equally dysfunctional. Eventually
after much nagging they gave me a link to their Unix box and I used
Pine or Tin or something that worked, One was a newsreader than one
was a mail reader. I daid I needed them to for work in order to be
able to tap into the collective wisdom of aue.

>In the long run I found a way to have mail forwarded from Gropewise to a
>real mail program. I only had to go into GW once every few months, to
>delete the hundreds of messages that broke the system by putting me over
>quota.

That's what I did with YahooMail until they disabled that function.

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 21:39:10 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
> There's
> nothing dysfunctional about gmail.
>

Nothing _visibly_ dysfunctional, perhaps -- I have no direct
experience.

But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
to target advertising in any way we choose."

No, that's not a direct quote. It's my own paraphrase, from memory,
of terms that I found unacceptable when I actually read the Terms of
Service a few years ago.

You couldn't get me to sign up for gmail on any incentive you might
conceivably offer.

For years, the only answer I would give to mail from gmail was a
brief statement alluding to their dysprivacy policies and suggesting
that the sender contact me from a better email provider. I've since
backed down from that stance, but I'm still extremely careful what I
put in an email to a gmail address.

Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files
can't be received at gmail addresses. There appears to be no way for
the account owner to override this, even after they become aware of
the restriction. It's a definite problem, since an emailed ZIP file
is how I deliver the shareware I sell (not often enough) at
http://oakroadsystems.com/ . (File size isn't the problem; it's under
1 MB.)

"Don't be evil", my ass.

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 9:35:44 AM UTC-4, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2015 21:39:10 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

> > There's nothing dysfunctional about gmail.
>
> Nothing _visibly_ dysfunctional, perhaps -- I have no direct
> experience.
>
> But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
> of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
> who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
> to target advertising in any way we choose."
>
> No, that's not a direct quote. It's my own paraphrase, from memory,
> of terms that I found unacceptable when I actually read the Terms of
> Service a few years ago.

Did you determine whether those terms differ in any respect from those of
other email providers?

> You couldn't get me to sign up for gmail on any incentive you might
> conceivably offer.
>
> For years, the only answer I would give to mail from gmail was a
> brief statement alluding to their dysprivacy policies and suggesting
> that the sender contact me from a better email provider. I've since
> backed down from that stance, but I'm still extremely careful what I
> put in an email to a gmail address.

Yes, we know from experience that your concept of freedom of communication
is rather limited. "Hey, hey, S.t.B., how many ya gonna killfile todee?"

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:09:35 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>Some people move the goal posts, but in this case the goalposts have
>not moved but you've nevertheless managed to score three own goals.
>
>>You talk about gmail as dysfunctional, but you don't say how. There's
>>nothing dysfunctional about gmail.
>
>Send me a message in Gmail and I'll show you.
>
>You can send it to haye...@gmail.com

I just emailed you at that address using my gmail account. I did not
use the above as a link, but entered your address as I do all gmail.

I look forward to seeing how it's a dysfunctional process.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

He didn't say anywhere that he was talking about newsgroup posts. The
messages he tries to reply to are apparently e-mail messages.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On 5/24/15 7:35 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2015 21:39:10 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> There's
>> nothing dysfunctional about gmail.
>>
>
> Nothing _visibly_ dysfunctional, perhaps -- I have no direct
> experience.
>
> But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
> of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
> who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
> to target advertising in any way we choose."
>
> No, that's not a direct quote. It's my own paraphrase, from memory,
> of terms that I found unacceptable when I actually read the Terms of
> Service a few years ago.
>
> You couldn't get me to sign up for gmail on any incentive you might
> conceivably offer.
>
> For years, the only answer I would give to mail from gmail was a
> brief statement alluding to their dysprivacy policies and suggesting
> that the sender contact me from a better email provider. I've since
> backed down from that stance, but I'm still extremely careful what I
> put in an email to a gmail address.

"Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or
receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property
rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you
stays yours.

"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through
our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide
license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works
(such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes
we make so that your content works better with our Services),
communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute
such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited
purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to
develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our
Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google
Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content
that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services,
there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the
content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary
rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our
Services.

"Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to
provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized
search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection.
This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is
stored.

"If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile
photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications
connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and
comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and
other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit
sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account. For example, you
can choose your settings so your name and photo do not appear in an ad.

"You can find more information about how Google uses and stores content
in the privacy policy or additional terms for particular Services. If
you submit feedback or suggestions about our Services, we may use your
feedback or suggestions without obligation to you."

https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

> Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files
> can't be received at gmail addresses. There appears to be no way for
> the account owner to override this, even after they become aware of
> the restriction. It's a definite problem, since an emailed ZIP file
> is how I deliver the shareware I sell (not often enough) at
> http://oakroadsystems.com/ . (File size isn't the problem; it's under
> 1 MB.)

Actually, the restriction seems to be that you can't send an executable
file even if it's zipped. It's an antivirus measure (which is
compatible with arrogance).

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6590?hl=en

> "Don't be evil", my ass.
>


--

Jerry Friedman

[Richard Yates]

While these aspects of gmail are ones that you do not like, they all
apparently work as intended.

[Jack Campin]

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files
> can't be received at gmail addresses. There appears to be no way for
> the account owner to override this, even after they become aware of
> the restriction. It's a definite problem, since an emailed ZIP file
> is how I deliver the shareware I sell (not often enough) at
> http://oakroadsystems.com/ . (File size isn't the problem; it's under
> 1 MB.)

You're wrong. I just did it, 156K to my own gmail account. It
arrived within a minute, entirely routine.

You're using Windows. I try very hard not to let Windows users
get my address in their system - for that reason I have never
sent emails between the (Windows) system at my workplace and
my own (something else) machines at home. Any Windows system
(like yours) is just waiting to be compromised by a trojan so
it can relay its contents to someone with a malicious use for
the data. Compared with that, gmail is pretty innocuous.

I suspect your clients are running some sort of malware protection
that classifies your site or the content of your software as too
dangerous to handle. Gmail isn't doing it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Richard Tobin]

In article <df363087-3cd7-41dd...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
>> of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
>> who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
>> to target advertising in any way we choose."

Google admits that it analyses (by machine) the content of email you
send or receive. I can't find anything claiming ownership of it.

>> No, that's not a direct quote. It's my own paraphrase, from memory,
>> of terms that I found unacceptable when I actually read the Terms of
>> Service a few years ago.
>
>Did you determine whether those terms differ in any respect from those of
>other email providers?

It's not surprising that a company providing a free email service does
this - they make money from advertising to you, and want to attract
advertisers by targetting the ads based on everything they know about
you. You are not Google's customer, you are the product they sell to
their real customers, the advertisers.

Companies that sell an email service on the other hand make their
money from selling the service itself. My ISP specifically states "We
do not collect the content of emails that you have sent or received".

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <MPG.2fcb9db84...@news.individual.net>,

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files

>can't be received at gmail addresses. [...] It's a definite problem,

>since an emailed ZIP file is how I deliver the shareware I sell

Gmail does not allow zip file attachments that contain executables:

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6590?hl=en

Since their concern is to prevent malicious programs being run
automatically, it may be sufficient to rename the executable file (and
tell the customer to rename it back).

-- Richard

[Richard Yates]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:31:34 +0100, Jack Campin
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files
>> can't be received at gmail addresses. There appears to be no way for
>> the account owner to override this, even after they become aware of
>> the restriction. It's a definite problem, since an emailed ZIP file
>> is how I deliver the shareware I sell (not often enough) at
>> http://oakroadsystems.com/ . (File size isn't the problem; it's under
>> 1

>B.)
>
>You're wrong. I just did it, 156K to my own gmail account. It
>arrived within a minute, entirely routine.

I did this, too, without any problem. All on Windows, BTW.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:35:41 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 May 2015 21:39:10 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> There's
>> nothing dysfunctional about gmail.
>>
>
>Nothing _visibly_ dysfunctional, perhaps -- I have no direct
>experience.
>
>But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
>of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
>who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
>to target advertising in any way we choose."

This, to me, is an abuse of the word "dysfunction". I consider
dysfunction to mean "not functioning" or "not properly functioning".

Your disagreement is with gmail's terms of service. What you are
doing is like saying that a software program is dysfunctional because
it doesn't allow you to use that software on as many computers as you
would like to use it on. Adobe's Photoshop CC 2014 is an example of
this. I am restricted to using my copy of that program on the number
of computers I can use it on by their TOS, but that does not make it a
dysfunctional program in my opinion.

I don't disagree with your position, but I do disagree with your
description of that position in labeling gmail as dysfunctional.

For the record, I have never - to my knowledge - received any
advertising as a result of being a gmail user. I receive very little
unsolicited advertising, and I can identify the source in each case.
It's always the result of using some company's website and has nothing
to do with the email process.

>
>Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files
>can't be received at gmail addresses. There appears to be no way for
>the account owner to override this, even after they become aware of
>the restriction.

I invite you to send me a zip file as an attachment at my address of
tonycooper214 at gmail dot come. Make the necessary adjustments in
the address.

I will attempt to open the file. If successful, I will delete the
program. I've looked at your site, and have no interest in those
utilities. (No reflection on the software. It's just not software
that I have any use for.)

I just attached a zip file (a font file) to an email to myself. It
attached and sent without a problem.

[Tony Cooper]

He may use "messages" to describe email, but I wouldn't. While what
is said may be a message, we don't usually use "message" as in saying
"I received a message from my brother yesterday". Instead, we'd say
"I received an email from my brother yesterday".


I sent him an email using gmail, he received it, and he replied to it.
I'll respond to that later.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:31:34 +0100, Jack Campin
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files
>> can't be received at gmail addresses. There appears to be no way for
>> the account owner to override this, even after they become aware of
>> the restriction. It's a definite problem, since an emailed ZIP file
>> is how I deliver the shareware I sell (not often enough) at
>> http://oakroadsystems.com/ . (File size isn't the problem; it's under
>> 1 MB.)
>
>You're wrong. I just did it, 156K to my own gmail account. It
>arrived within a minute, entirely routine.
>
>You're using Windows. I try very hard not to let Windows users
>get my address in their system - for that reason I have never
>sent emails between the (Windows) system at my workplace and
>my own (something else) machines at home. Any Windows system
>(like yours) is just waiting to be compromised by a trojan so
>it can relay its contents to someone with a malicious use for
>the data. Compared with that, gmail is pretty innocuous.
>
>I suspect your clients are running some sort of malware protection
>that classifies your site or the content of your software as too
>dangerous to handle. Gmail isn't doing it.

I just sent myself a zipped file using my gmail account, and it worked
fine. I'm a Windows user.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <df363087-3cd7-41dd...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
> >> of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
> >> who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
> >> to target advertising in any way we choose."
>
> Google admits that it analyses (by machine) the content of email you
> send or receive. I can't find anything claiming ownership of it.

Part of what Jerry posted of the T&A looks like they're saying they can use
your content as input to their translation algorithm.

[Richard Yates]

You are right. An attached file with a .exe extension bounced back,
but changing the extension let it slip through.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:31:34 +0100, Jack Campin wrote:
> I suspect your clients are running some sort of malware protection
> that classifies your site or the content of your software as too
> dangerous to handle. Gmail isn't doing it.
>

Yes it is; the message headers make that clear.

But I think Jerry Friedman put his finger on it: apparently they
haven't decided that their customers can't receive ZIP files that
they requested; they've decided that their customers can't receive
EXE files that they've requested, even wrapped inside a ZIP.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:13:18 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:35:41 -0400, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>

> > [quoted text muted]

> >But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
> >of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
> >who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
> >to target advertising in any way we choose."
>
> This, to me, is an abuse of the word "dysfunction". I consider
> dysfunction to mean "not functioning" or "not properly functioning".
>

So do I.

And doing anything to or with the intellectual property of people who
have not consented to that use is not proper functioning.

I'll let you have the last word, if you want it. :)

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 14:44:13 -0400, Stan Brown

<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:13:18 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:35:41 -0400, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
>> >of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
>> >who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
>> >to target advertising in any way we choose."
>>
>> This, to me, is an abuse of the word "dysfunction". I consider
>> dysfunction to mean "not functioning" or "not properly functioning".
>>
>
>So do I.
>
>And doing anything to or with the intellectual property of people who
>have not consented to that use is not proper functioning.
>
>I'll let you have the last word, if you want it. :)

OK, I'll take the last word.

By your reasoning, my cable TV provider is dysfunctional because
there's a setting that allows me to block pornography.

My Agent (newsreader) is dysfunctional because certain posters can be
killfiled. (PTD has not consented to be killfiled, as we have often
been told.)

Gmail is dysfunctional because I can block certain senders and certain
types of mail are automatically sent to my SPAM file.

My news provider is dysfunctional because they do not allow binaries.

While the user consents to all of the above, the sender does not
consent. I really don't care if FatLadyBeaverShots.com objects to my
terms of service and their website containing their intellectual
property is blocked.

[Robert Bannister]

Quite correct. So it's a polite medical term, although I think I have
heard "problems" too.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <mjr9mq$tbf$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 24/05/15 10:43, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> > I like to begin my letters with a greeting and end them with a
> > signature. Yahoomail now forces me to begin my messages with a
> > signature.
>
> The university I worked for tried to get me to use an abomination called
> Groupwise. I spent ages trying to find a setting that would put my
> signature at the bottom instead of the top. There was no such option,
> but eventually I worked out what rule it was following. The signature
> was placed before the first quoted material. It was acting as a marker
> saying "You don't need to read past this point; it contains nothing but
> the entire history of the exchange".

When I was working, I found email tremendously useful, mostly because of
the paper trail it left. However, people in one business that hired me
insisted that top posting a reply to an email they sent was the only
way, and my way, which was to snip the unessentials and reply at the
bottom, or interleave my replies in amongst their message.

They were of course, younger than me and more importantly, I think had
no experience with Usenet.

>
> It worked for the IT division and for management, because they all
> top-posted and never snipped the past history. It worked far less well
> for the academics, who already knew how e-mail was supposed to work.

This annoyed me as well, as soon, there was extra material that had
nothing to do with their reply and I had to scroll down to make sure.

>
> In the long run I found a way to have mail forwarded from Gropewise to a
> real mail program. I only had to go into GW once every few months, to
> delete the hundreds of messages that broke the system by putting me over
> quota.

--

charls

[Peter Moylan]

On 24/05/15 23:35, Stan Brown wrote:

> Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files
> can't be received at gmail addresses. There appears to be no way for
> the account owner to override this, even after they become aware of
> the restriction. It's a definite problem, since an emailed ZIP file
> is how I deliver the shareware I sell (not often enough) at
> http://oakroadsystems.com/ . (File size isn't the problem; it's under
> 1 MB.)
>
> "Don't be evil", my ass.

Far be it from me to defend gmail, but I can see why they block zip
files. Zip files became popular with spammers and virus distributors
when Microsoft mail programs introduced the "convenience" feature of
automatically opening attachments for you (and therefore installing the
virus) without any input from the user. Microsoft has now stopped doing
this, I'm told, but zip files still feature in some proportion of the
messages in my junk mail folder.

You might get around it with another compression format, e.g. gzip. That
would depend on how much analysis gmail does of the attachments.

I bypass the problem by having my own FTP server, and giving links to
where people can download my software. But then most of my software goes
to OS/2 users, who don't have a virus problem.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Steve Hayes]

fOn Sun, 24 May 2015 12:16:49 -0400, Tony Cooper

Is that a pondisn difference?

I have always called e-mail messages messages.

When I first started using newsgroups I was told that one should not
call the posts "messages", but that the correct term was "article",
but everyone seems to ignore that nowadays.

Some people still call e-mail messages "letters", but that sounds a
bit old-fashioned to me.

[Guy Barry]

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:hdd5ma5mtgnep7rjb...@4ax.com...

>
>fOn Sun, 24 May 2015 12:16:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>He may use "messages" to describe email, but I wouldn't. While what
>>is said may be a message, we don't usually use "message" as in saying
>>"I received a message from my brother yesterday". Instead, we'd say
>>"I received an email from my brother yesterday".
>
>Is that a pondisn difference?
>
>I have always called e-mail messages messages.

Yes, I call them "messages" sometimes. I used to object to "emails" on the
grounds that "email" was a mass noun rather than a count noun, but I've
fallen in with the general convention.

>When I first started using newsgroups I was told that one should not
>call the posts "messages", but that the correct term was "article",
>but everyone seems to ignore that nowadays.

I call them "posts", as I think most people do.

>Some people still call e-mail messages "letters", but that sounds a
>bit old-fashioned to me.

Never heard that one.

--
Guy Barry

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 07:43:51 +0200, Steve Hayes

It may be more than a pondian difference. It may be a difference
between usage in Tshwane and the rest of the world.

"Message" has come back in the form of "text message", though. That
applies to the messages sent on mobile phones.

[LFS]

But most people call them simply "texts".

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[pensive hamster]

On Saturday, 23 May 2015 17:20:48 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
[...]

> You cannot read my posts using gmail.
> There is no connection whatsoever between gmail and my posts.

If you use Google Groups, it gives you the option to receive
newsgroup (or 'Groups') posts by email, either as 'All email',
'Abridged email' or 'Digest email'.

I've no idea how this works in practice, having selected the
'No email' option. But I daresay that if you choose to receive
ng posts by email (by gmail, presumably), you can also reply to
them via gmail. I would run the experiment, if I felt there was
any conceivable benefit to humanity in doing so.

> The only way you could reply to one of my posts in gmail is to create
> a gmail account and send me a gmail containing your reply.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <6577527a-444d-4bf3...@googlegroups.com>,

pensive hamster <pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>If you use Google Groups, it gives you the option to receive
>newsgroup (or 'Groups') posts by email, either as 'All email',
>'Abridged email' or 'Digest email'.
>
>I've no idea how this works in practice, having selected the
>'No email' option. But I daresay that if you choose to receive
>ng posts by email (by gmail, presumably), you can also reply to
>them via gmail. I would run the experiment, if I felt there was
>any conceivable benefit to humanity in doing so.

You can't post to Usenet groups by email, only "Google Groups"
(which here means the groups set up through Google Groups).
See the last bullet point of:

https://support.google.com/groups/answer/6003482?hl=en

I expect the same applies to receiving groups by email.

-- Richard

[Robert Bannister]

On 25/05/2015 8:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <mjr9mq$tbf$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24/05/15 10:43, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> I like to begin my letters with a greeting and end them with a
>>> signature. Yahoomail now forces me to begin my messages with a
>>> signature.
>>
>> The university I worked for tried to get me to use an abomination called
>> Groupwise. I spent ages trying to find a setting that would put my
>> signature at the bottom instead of the top. There was no such option,
>> but eventually I worked out what rule it was following. The signature
>> was placed before the first quoted material. It was acting as a marker
>> saying "You don't need to read past this point; it contains nothing but
>> the entire history of the exchange".
>
> When I was working, I found email tremendously useful, mostly because of
> the paper trail it left. However, people in one business that hired me
> insisted that top posting a reply to an email they sent was the only
> way, and my way, which was to snip the unessentials and reply at the
> bottom, or interleave my replies in amongst their message.
>
> They were of course, younger than me and more importantly, I think had
> no experience with Usenet.

I always top-post in a business email. I think the idea is, from their
point of view, is that you won't always be dealing with the same person
and so whoever gets to deal with your case can read up the entire
history of your business. From one's own point of view, it's much the
same: if you haven't been saving the correspondence to disc, you still
have something you can produce in court if necessary.

[Robert Bannister]

Funny. I call emails "emails". If someone told me they had received a
message, I would be imagining a written note or an oral message.
"Letters" gives, of course, the wrong impression entirely.

[Robert Bannister]

Except that my phone uses an app called "Messager".

[Tony Cooper]

And, aren't "messages" errands to some?

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 10:25:30 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
<pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On Saturday, 23 May 2015 17:20:48 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>[...]
>> You cannot read my posts using gmail.
>> There is no connection whatsoever between gmail and my posts.
>
>If you use Google Groups, it gives you the option to receive
>newsgroup (or 'Groups') posts by email, either as 'All email',
>'Abridged email' or 'Digest email'.
>
>I've no idea how this works in practice, having selected the
>'No email' option. But I daresay that if you choose to receive
>ng posts by email (by gmail, presumably), you can also reply to
>them via gmail. I would run the experiment, if I felt there was
>any conceivable benefit to humanity in doing so.

Yes, and there are several newsgroups that are gated to mailing lists
by people other than Google.

I first encountered aue when it was gated to Fidonet, and I read and
replied to posts with the BinkleyTerm editor.

>
>> The only way you could reply to one of my posts in gmail is to create
>> a gmail account and send me a gmail containing your reply.

[Robert Bannister]

Absolutely. Especially in Scotland.

[Steve Hayes]

Here they are called SMSs. Illogical, I know, but more precise than
"text" as a noun, though the BrE "text" as a verb is catching on here
slowly. Most people still say "SMS me" rather than "text me".

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 07:41:50 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

I'm not sure why it would give the wrong impression *entirely*.

You can say exactly the same things in an e-mail message that tou can
in a snail mail letter, so there's no reason why you couldn't call it
a letter.

Calling an e-mail message "an e-mail" sounds odd to me, but probably
no more odd than calling an SMS message "an SMS" sounds off to people
who call it "a text".

I tend to call any one-to-one or one-to-many electronic communication
using text "a message", whether it is sent by e-mail, newsgroup,
posted in the message section of Facebook and other web sites. Twitter
has "tweets" and "direct messages". "Message" to me is a generic term,
regardless of the means of transmission.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Richard Yates:

> On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:35:41 -0400, Stan Brown

> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 2015 21:39:10 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> There's
>>> nothing dysfunctional about gmail.
>>>
>>
>>Nothing _visibly_ dysfunctional, perhaps -- I have no direct
>>experience.

>>
>>But the _invisible_ dysfunction is massive: "We own all the content
>>of messages sent and received in Gmail, even messages from senders
>>who have not agreed to these terms. And we have the right to use it
>>to target advertising in any way we choose."
>>

>>No, that's not a direct quote. It's my own paraphrase,

[...]

>>Gmail is also dysfunctional in that it arrogantly decides ZIP files
>>can't be received at gmail addresses. There appears to be no way for
>>the account owner to override this, even after they become aware of
>>the restriction. It's a definite problem, since an emailed ZIP file
>>is how I deliver the shareware I sell (not often enough) at
>>http://oakroadsystems.com/ . (File size isn't the problem; it's under
>>1 MB.)
>>
>>"Don't be evil", my ass.
>

> While these aspects of gmail are ones that you do not like, they all
> apparently work as intended.

I don't think that "works as intended" is by itself contrary to
"dysfunctional". "Works as intended" is the maker's persepctive,
but "dysfunctional" is a word used from the user's perspective.
"It's not a bug, it's a feature" is a way to describe an intended
dysfunctionality.

The issue is if the software designers intended to create a
product that is mainly useful to the user in question, and whether
they are misleading the user with the description of what the
product is or does. Something is dysfunctional if it doesn't do
what the user expects, unless the expectation is unreasonable,
given the description. I don't mean the whole documentation here,
but a typical introductory blurb.

What's unreasonable is of course hard to pin down. But gmail is an
email service, so I find it reasonable to expect to be able to
receive attachments, because that is part of general email
functionality. If you have to jump through a few hoops to download
a potentially dangerous attachment like a .exe, it's a gray area;
I find that acceptable, others may not. But blocking it completely
isn't.

OTOH, I don't see the targeted advertising as dysfunctional,
because it adds something unwanted, but does not remove expected
functionality. To be dysfunctional, the ads would have to
interfere with normal reading or writing of emails.

Some forms of the re-use of other private materials (not emails)
by Google, as quoted in another post, break reasonable
expectations of civil conduct in my opinion, and should be null
even if you summarily agreed to their terms and conditions, but
the courts have the ultimate say on that.

Meanwhile, I take various steps to avoid sharing too much data
with Google (and others like it), but since I now use an Android
phone with Google services installed, they do get a lot from me.

--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)

[Jerry Friedman]

On 5/25/15 10:52 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:35:51 +0100, LFS
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/05/2015 15:58, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> "Message" has come back in the form of "text message", though. That
>>> applies to the messages sent on mobile phones.
>>>
>>
>> But most people call them simply "texts".
>
> Here they are called SMSs. Illogical, I know, but more precise than
> "text" as a noun, though the BrE "text" as a verb is catching on here
> slowly.

Also an AmE verb.

> Most people still say "SMS me" rather than "text me".

I recently overheard someone say "message me", but I hear "text me" much
more often.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

Is a British SMS the same as an American IM?

[Richard Tobin]

In article <54ae0e97-50d6-4c4f...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Is a British SMS the same as an American IM?

SMS refers to the text messaging system that is part of the GSM
standard for mobile phone networks, and which is also available on
CDMA networks. SMS is a technical term, and sending an SMS message is
generally referred to as "texting" in Britain and, I believe, the US.

IM stands for "instant messaging" and is a more general category
that includes AIM, Skype, iMessage, and many others.

So I don't think your equivalence is correct.

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <mk7u72$eus$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, I forgot to say:

An important distinguishing feature of SMS messages as opposed to
other "instant messages" is that they are directed to phone numbers
rather than usernames.

-- Richard

[Hans Aberg]

And unencrypted and typically several tens of thousands of times more
expensive to consumers.

[Peter T. Daniels]

so they're "texts"?

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ffe20aac-03b3-43aa...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> An important distinguishing feature of SMS messages as opposed to
>> other "instant messages" is that they are directed to phone numbers
>> rather than usernames.

>so they're "texts"?

Yes.

-- Richard

[Robert Bannister]

No, texts are SMSs.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Tony Cooper:

It's like saying "forum" when you actually mean a Newsgroup.

Both emails and Usenet posts adhere to the "Internet Message
Format", though. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322>

In the olden days, German had the acronym GABELN:
Group/Area/Board/Echo/List/Net[1], to accommodate the diverse
terminology common in different circles, like Usenet or various
BBS systems. Note that this does not include "forum", as Web fora
... uh ... forums weren't around yet.

____
[1] Hey, this works in English 1:1. However, it's not interesting,
because the acronym doesn't mean anything. In German, "Gabeln" are
forks.
--
Microsoft designed a user-friendly car:
instead of the oil, alternator, gas and engine
warning lights it has just one: "General Car Fault"

[Snidely]

Hans Aberg blurted out:

Used to be per-message charges, but most plans come with unlimited
messages these days, judging from the ads I can see in my area.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[Steve Hayes]

Brits text, they don't SMS.

I'm not sure what an American IM is, but in South Africa it's one of
those Internet services I don't use.

[Steve Hayes]

In BrE, yes.