Re: [discuss] Moderator-Forced Unsubscribes
Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany
> So far, I've seen no evidence that anybody actually monitors the
> users-owner account. Hmm .. maybe we can petition to have Paul be the
> list owner? :-)
If he volunteers, this can be done. Just verified with Martin
Hollmichel: The currently-set owner is not active anymore, so he asked
who else we should set up as owner.
Opinions?
Ciao
Frank
--
- Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer frank.sc...@sun.com -
- Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice -
- OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-u...@openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discus...@openoffice.org
Barbara Duprey
> Hi Barbara,
>
>
>> So far, I've seen no evidence that anybody actually monitors the
>> users-owner account. Hmm .. maybe we can petition to have Paul be the
>> list owner? :-)
>>
>
> If he volunteers, this can be done. Just verified with Martin
> Hollmichel: The currently-set owner is not active anymore, so he asked
> who else we should set up as owner.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Ciao
> Frank
The duties of the owner can't be too overwhelming, if we've gotten away
without one for so long! If Paul's willing, he sounds like a good choice
to me. Is the discuss list in the same state?
Cor Nouws
> Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
>>> So far, I've seen no evidence that anybody actually monitors the
>>> users-owner account. Hmm .. maybe we can petition to have Paul be
>>> the list owner? :-)
>>
>> If he volunteers, this can be done. Just verified with Martin
>> Hollmichel: The currently-set owner is not active anymore, so he asked
>> who else we should set up as owner.
>>
>> Opinions?
>
> without one for so long! If Paul's willing, he sounds like a good choice
> to me.
+ 1
> Is the discuss list in the same state?
Probably yes..
--
Cor Nouws
- nl.OpenOffice.org marketing contact
- Community Contributor Representative in the Community Council
Gevoel niet vrij te zijn? Zie www.nieuwsteversie.nl
Martin Hollmichel
> Barbara Duprey wrote (16-12-09 16:51)
>> Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
>>>> So far, I've seen no evidence that anybody actually monitors the
>>>> users-owner account. Hmm .. maybe we can petition to have Paul be
>>>> the list owner? :-)
>>>
>>> If he volunteers, this can be done. Just verified with Martin
>>> Hollmichel: The currently-set owner is not active anymore, so he asked
>>> who else we should set up as owner.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>
>> The duties of the owner can't be too overwhelming, if we've gotten
>> away without one for so long! If Paul's willing, he sounds like a
>> good choice to me.
>
> + 1
>
>> Is the discuss list in the same state?
>
> Probably yes..
Martin
Andrew Jensen
Martin.H...@sun.com> wrote:
> Cor Nouws wrote:
>
>> Barbara Duprey wrote (16-12-09 16:51)
>>
>>> Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
>>>
>>>> So far, I've seen no evidence that anybody actually monitors the
>>>>> users-owner account. Hmm .. maybe we can petition to have Paul be the list
>>>>> owner? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If he volunteers, this can be done. Just verified with Martin
>>>> Hollmichel: The currently-set owner is not active anymore, so he asked
>>>> who else we should set up as owner.
>>>>
>>>> Opinions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The duties of the owner can't be too overwhelming, if we've gotten away
>>> without one for so long! If Paul's willing, he sounds like a good choice to
>>> me.
>>>
>>
>> + 1
>>
>
+1
So, Paul...looks as if you may need to volunteer, if for no other reason
then to avoid being drafted.
Bernhard Dippold
Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany schrieb:
> Hi Barbara,
>
>
>> So far, I've seen no evidence that anybody actually monitors the
>> users-owner account. Hmm .. maybe we can petition to have Paul be the
>> list owner? :-)
>>
> If he volunteers, this can be done. Just verified with Martin
> Hollmichel: The currently-set owner is not active anymore, so he asked
> who else we should set up as owner.
>
> Opinions?
>
Even if I support nominating Paul as list-owner, I think that this will
not solve the problem of unsubscribing people.
If I've been told correctly, the only people having the possibility to
do that are the project owner: lead and co-lead of the project.
Best regards
Bernhard
Paul
>
> Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany schrieb:
>
> Hi Barbara,
>>
>>
>>
>>> So far, I've seen no evidence that anybody actually monitors the
>>> users-owner account. Hmm .. maybe we can petition to have Paul be the
>>> list owner? :-)
>>>
>>>
>> If he volunteers, this can be done. Just verified with Martin
>> Hollmichel: The currently-set owner is not active anymore, so he asked
>> who else we should set up as owner.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>>
> Even if I support nominating Paul as list-owner, I think that this will not
> solve the problem of unsubscribing people.
>
> If I've been told correctly, the only people having the possibility to do
> that are the project owner: lead and co-lead of the project.
>
>
I have in fact, just very recently, been given the status of project owner
(there can be many 'owners') for the applicable project in order to
add/remove subscribers from both the discuss and users list.
Obviously this (moderator forced unsub) will only be done under extreme
circumstances since I'm sure everyone will agree that getting users to
understand what they have done and to unsub themselves is still the
preference.
I will continue to monitor both lists, but no action will be taken until
plenty of discussion has been had.
Let me know if there are any queries.
/paul
--
Pablo Picasso<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pablo_picasso.html>
- "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
Bernhard Dippold
Paul schrieb:
> [...]
> I have in fact, just very recently, been given the status of project owner
> (there can be many 'owners') for the applicable project in order to
> add/remove subscribers from both the discuss and users list.
>
So you have the necessary rights :-)
I'm sure that you will use them with responsibility and foresight.
It's very good that these important lists are monitored regularly.
Thanks for your dedication!
Paul
bern...@familie-dippold.at> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Paul schrieb:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> I have in fact, just very recently, been given the status of project owner
>> (there can be many 'owners') for the applicable project in order to
>> add/remove subscribers from both the discuss and users list.
>>
>>
> So you have the necessary rights :-)
>
>
Yep.
> I'm sure that you will use them with responsibility and foresight.
>
Naturally....
> It's very good that these important lists are monitored regularly.
>
>
I've been subscribed to the lists for over 5 years and monitoring for 4
years. These days I monitor and lurk (pretty much each day) but will jump in
when required.
/paul
--
Jonathan Swift<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jonathan_swift.html>
- "May you live every day of your life."
Barbara Duprey
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany schrieb:
>>
>> Hi Barbara,
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So far, I've seen no evidence that anybody actually monitors the
>>>> users-owner account. Hmm .. maybe we can petition to have Paul be the
>>>> list owner? :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If he volunteers, this can be done. Just verified with Martin
>>> Hollmichel: The currently-set owner is not active anymore, so he asked
>>> who else we should set up as owner.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Even if I support nominating Paul as list-owner, I think that this will not
>> solve the problem of unsubscribing people.
>>
>> If I've been told correctly, the only people having the possibility to do
>> that are the project owner: lead and co-lead of the project.
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks for the support..
>
> (there can be many 'owners') for the applicable project in order to
> add/remove subscribers from both the discuss and users list.
>
> circumstances since I'm sure everyone will agree that getting users to
> understand what they have done and to unsub themselves is still the
> preference.
>
> I will continue to monitor both lists, but no action will be taken until
> plenty of discussion has been had.
>
> Let me know if there are any queries.
>
> /paul
Fantastic! Yes, this kind of action needs to be "court of last resort"
-- it's just that sometimes people just can't or won't do what's needed.
Does this mean you'll be seeing the users-owner and discuss-owner messages?
Paul
>
> Fantastic! Yes, this kind of action needs to be "court of last resort" --
> it's just that sometimes people just can't or won't do what's needed. Does
> this mean you'll be seeing the users-owner and discuss-owner messages?
>
>
No I don't see those messages. There is still a 'listed' owner that is not
me that may get these messages.
/paul
--
Samuel Goldwyn<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/samuel_goldwyn.html>
- "I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never
wrong."
Barbara Duprey
> [snip]
>
>
>> Fantastic! Yes, this kind of action needs to be "court of last resort" --
>> it's just that sometimes people just can't or won't do what's needed. Does
>> this mean you'll be seeing the users-owner and discuss-owner messages?
>>
>>
>>
> No I don't see those messages. There is still a 'listed' owner that is not
> me that may get these messages.
>
> /paul
I think you need to be made the listed owner; nobody answers those
messages, and Frank verified with Martin that the one who is currently
the listed owner is no longer active. Martin, can you set this up? Among
other things, every single admin message from ezmlm says that
[listname]-ow...@openoffice.org should be used when people have trouble
with the autoprocessing.
Martin Hollmichel
> [snip]
>
>
>> Fantastic! Yes, this kind of action needs to be "court of last resort" --
>> it's just that sometimes people just can't or won't do what's needed. Does
>> this mean you'll be seeing the users-owner and discuss-owner messages?
>>
>>
>>
> No I don't see those messages. There is still a 'listed' owner that is not
> me that may get these messages.
>
Martin
> /paul
Mike Scott
....
> Obviously this (moderator forced unsub) will only be done under extreme
> circumstances since I'm sure everyone will agree that getting users to
> understand what they have done and to unsub themselves is still the
> preference.
One issue (at least on 'users') is that some subscribed users claim
never to have subscribed. A seeming impossibility, and presumably
they're either /very/ forgetful, or they've shared their email address
with someone.
There is another possibility to deal with the situation. I suggested on
'users' a while ago (meeting with an unexpected lack of enthusiasm) that
an auto-responder might be constructed (maybe even independently of the
actual lists) that (a) would pick out messages from unsubscribed users
and respond with a likely simple help message plus further info on using
the list, and (b) could pick out any obvious 'please unsubscribe me'
messages and send the necessary list unsub email (obviously the user
would still need to confirm this though).
Quite a bit of up-front effort to get going in a responsible way, but
might be beneficial in the longer term. Or am I missing something?
>
> I will continue to monitor both lists, but no action will be taken until
> plenty of discussion has been had.
>
> Let me know if there are any queries.
>
M. Fioretti
> There is another possibility to deal with the situation. I suggested
> on 'users' a while ago (meeting with an unexpected lack of
> enthusiasm) that an auto-responder might be constructed
You were lucky. As far as I know, I was the first to suggest that, and
I suggested the same thing several times from 5+ years ago to 1+ years
ago, spending a LOT of time on it. Some times, I met lack of
enthusiasm. Other times I met some variation of (the following is a
summary, not an actual quote):
> "since *I* have no clue of how email actually works and I'm proud of
> it, it is obvious that what you suggest cannot work. Besides, I have
> lots of empty spare time, so providing support in a way that take
> much more of my time than it would be necessary gives a purpose to
> *my* day. So I won't care if the side effect is to fill the
> mailboxes of all other subscribers with duplicates of each message
> "re-sent to the unsubscribed poster" or endless discussions about
> why this is a sensible way to work"
One year ago I become disgusted enough to unsubscribe. About two
months ago I subscribed again. The very first message I got from
ooo-users was a rant (from one of the very people who in the past had
answered as above my proposals for autoresponders) about "how to deal
with unsubscribed users". I laughed hard for some minutes, then
remained subscribed with this strategy which I highly recommend to
everybody for that specific mailing list:
1) Always cancel without even opening them all new messages with a
subject which doesn't give a CLEAR idea of what the problem is
2) never waste one second to set up (or discuss) client side header
filters or anything like that to figure out who's subscribed and
who isn't. Whenever you answer at ooo-users, ALWAYS send the reply
to both the OP and the list. Period. Given the context, there's
nothing else sensible you may do. Overall, it would also be much
less traffic for everybody than what comes in today.
Note: please don't ask me about the autoresponder. Nothing personal
about you, but for the reasons above, I have *no* intention to spend
one more minute on that. All I had to say is in the archives, just
look for "procmail". The only reason I stepped in is to suggest you
and everybody else not to stress your liver and go for the 2-step
method above instead.
Marco Fioretti
--
OOo4Kids, the OpenOffice for all children... and their parents:
http://stop.zona-m.net/node/42
Mike Scott
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 07:55:51 AM +0000, Mike Scott wrote:
>
>> There is another possibility to deal with the situation. I suggested
>> on 'users' a while ago (meeting with an unexpected lack of
>> enthusiasm) that an auto-responder might be constructed
>
> You were lucky. As far as I know, I was the first to suggest that, and
> I suggested the same thing several times from 5+ years ago to 1+ years
> ago, spending a LOT of time on it. Some times, I met lack of
So there really is nothing new..... Oh well. :-(
> enthusiasm. Other times I met some variation of (the following is a
> summary, not an actual quote):
>
>> "since *I* have no clue of how email actually works and I'm proud of
>> it, it is obvious that what you suggest cannot work. Besides, I have
>> lots of empty spare time, so providing support in a way that take
>> much more of my time than it would be necessary gives a purpose to
>> *my* day. So I won't care if the side effect is to fill the
>> mailboxes of all other subscribers with duplicates of each message
>> "re-sent to the unsubscribed poster" or endless discussions about
>> why this is a sensible way to work"
I did get that sort of feeling too. Very similar to attitudes among
sysadmins where I used to work - always keen to be seen by management
(invariably proud of their hardworking staff) to be 'fixing things'
(almost always trivial), never to put in the effort up front to save
those trivial jobs and do something more constructive. I took the view
the computer was there to save the legwork. The company went belly-up a
year ago; I can't imagine why.
>
> One year ago I become disgusted enough to unsubscribe. About two
> months ago I subscribed again. The very first message I got from
> ooo-users was a rant (from one of the very people who in the past had
> answered as above my proposals for autoresponders) about "how to deal
> with unsubscribed users". I laughed hard for some minutes, then
> remained subscribed with this strategy which I highly recommend to
> everybody for that specific mailing list:
>
> 1) Always cancel without even opening them all new messages with a
> subject which doesn't give a CLEAR idea of what the problem is
>
> 2) never waste one second to set up (or discuss) client side header
> filters or anything like that to figure out who's subscribed and
> who isn't. Whenever you answer at ooo-users, ALWAYS send the reply
> to both the OP and the list. Period. Given the context, there's
> nothing else sensible you may do. Overall, it would also be much
> less traffic for everybody than what comes in today.
>
> Note: please don't ask me about the autoresponder. Nothing personal
> about you, but for the reasons above, I have *no* intention to spend
> one more minute on that. All I had to say is in the archives, just
I don't blame you. I did a couple of years ago start collecting and
collating questions with a view to creating some sort of
statistical-match 'bot, but gave up because I felt there was no serious
chance of the work being used.
> look for "procmail". The only reason I stepped in is to suggest you
> and everybody else not to stress your liver and go for the 2-step
> method above instead.
I prefer the one-step method - I think about re-subscribing, and then
decide it's not worth the effort :-) I'll wait until I need help(*):
that may sound selfish, but while I have tried to offer help on 'users'
where I could, the noise level is just too great, and I'm not prepared
to have the self-same issues thrust before me time and time again.
>
> Marco Fioretti
(*) Given the quality of OOo, and the unlikelihood of fixes for the
irritants that are certainly present, that's not likely to be in the
near future.
Barbara Duprey
> Paul wrote:
> ....
>> Obviously this (moderator forced unsub) will only be done under extreme
>> circumstances since I'm sure everyone will agree that getting users to
>> understand what they have done and to unsub themselves is still the
>> preference.
>
> One issue (at least on 'users') is that some subscribed users claim
> never to have subscribed. A seeming impossibility, and presumably
> they're either /very/ forgetful, or they've shared their email address
> with someone.
I've been asking those folks for information about what happened, so far
no result. But I'm afraid there's a real hole there on the OOo side.
Consider the guy who was certain he couldn't unsubscribe because when he
tried to reply to the confirmation message, his mail program would not
accept the "To" address due to the equals sign in it. He'd have had the
same problem with subscribing, but he's one of the ones who apparently
never went through the normal subscription process. My best guess to
date is that there is either another place on the site to subscribe that
skips the confirmation (because the address belongs to somebody who's
registered to the site?), or a way for a third party to intercept and
respond to the confirmation. I suppose a shared address is possible, but
that would imply extremely poor communication between the parties involved.
>
> There is another possibility to deal with the situation. I suggested
> on 'users' a while ago (meeting with an unexpected lack of enthusiasm)
> that an auto-responder might be constructed (maybe even independently
> of the actual lists) that (a) would pick out messages from
> unsubscribed users and respond with a likely simple help message plus
> further info on using the list, and (b) could pick out any obvious
> 'please unsubscribe me' messages and send the necessary list unsub
> email (obviously the user would still need to confirm this though).
>
> Quite a bit of up-front effort to get going in a responsible way, but
> might be beneficial in the longer term. Or am I missing something?
I'm guessing your auto-responder to unsubs would advise them to
subscribe, and to filter list traffic into a separate mailbox so it
doesn't overwhelm their normal mail -- but they often just want an
answer to their specific problem and not any kind of real relationship
with the list. I don't think they'd be likely to follow such advice,
even if they knew how, and many would not. Also, trying to identify
unsub-me messages is pretty easy for people but not nearly so easy for
an automated process, and there are other things that interfere with the
unsubscribe process besides simply not sending the correct unsub
request. (The worst of these is when the subscribed account is unknown
or inaccessible.) I think you'd still have plenty of both problems
(getting messages to unsubbed posters, and failed unsubs), even after
all the work. I'm working up some documentation to discuss here, almost
done.
>
>
>>
>> I will continue to monitor both lists, but no action will be taken until
>> plenty of discussion has been had.
>>
>> Let me know if there are any queries.
>>
>> /paul
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scott
....
>> One issue (at least on 'users') is that some subscribed users claim
>> never to have subscribed. A seeming impossibility, and presumably
>> they're either /very/ forgetful, or they've shared their email address
>> with someone.
>
> I've been asking those folks for information about what happened, so far
> no result. But I'm afraid there's a real hole there on the OOo side.
> Consider the guy who was certain he couldn't unsubscribe because when he
> tried to reply to the confirmation message, his mail program would not
> accept the "To" address due to the equals sign in it. He'd have had the
Hmmm. If every broken mail client has to be worked round....... doesn't
bear thinking about.
I wonder, maybe subscriptions might be automatically dropped if
nothing's received by the server (maybe just a response to an automated
'are you still there' query) in any period of, what, say 6 months from
any given email address. Just a mad idea to float, and I recognise that
some people 'lurk' on lists.
....
> I'm guessing your auto-responder to unsubs would advise them to
> subscribe, and to filter list traffic into a separate mailbox so it
> doesn't overwhelm their normal mail -- but they often just want an
> answer to their specific problem and not any kind of real relationship
The idea was to keep their stuff off the list - just to provide a 'best
guess' answer, directions to a (currently non-existent?????) web-based
FAQ, plus instructions that they could subscribe to contact real people
if they still had a problem.
> with the list. I don't think they'd be likely to follow such advice,
> even if they knew how, and many would not. Also, trying to identify
Agreed. But at what point do you decide people who /will/ not help
themselves (eg basic computer use training) should not consume scarce
resources for hand-holding them?
> unsub-me messages is pretty easy for people but not nearly so easy for
> an automated process, and there are other things that interfere with the
Maybe. I'm sure a lot could be picked up though, and trigger the 'please
respond to finish the unsub' mechanism.
> unsubscribe process besides simply not sending the correct unsub
> request. (The worst of these is when the subscribed account is unknown
See above re sending to server to remain on list.
> or inaccessible.) I think you'd still have plenty of both problems
> (getting messages to unsubbed posters, and failed unsubs), even after
> all the work. I'm working up some documentation to discuss here, almost
> done.
I'll look forward to that. Thanks for the reply.
Barbara Duprey
> Barbara Duprey wrote:
> ....
>>> One issue (at least on 'users') is that some subscribed users claim
>>> never to have subscribed. A seeming impossibility, and presumably
>>> they're either /very/ forgetful, or they've shared their email
>>> address with someone.
>>
>> I've been asking those folks for information about what happened, so
>> far no result. But I'm afraid there's a real hole there on the OOo
>> side. Consider the guy who was certain he couldn't unsubscribe
>> because when he tried to reply to the confirmation message, his mail
>> program would not accept the "To" address due to the equals sign in
>> it. He'd have had the
>
> Hmmm. If every broken mail client has to be worked round.......
> doesn't bear thinking about.
Actually, the list manager accommodates this by allowing the "To"
address to be placed in the subject line of a [listname]-request
command. It's just that people usually don't notice that part of the
admin info they get. Since subjects are basically not restricted, this
works OK.
>
> I wonder, maybe subscriptions might be automatically dropped if
> nothing's received by the server (maybe just a response to an
> automated 'are you still there' query) in any period of, what, say 6
> months from any given email address. Just a mad idea to float, and I
> recognise that some people 'lurk' on lists.
Worth some more thought -- I'm especially interested as a solution to
the unknown/inaccessible subscriber. There is an immediate solution
(using the Return-Path header), but that has to be implemented by the
person getting the unwanted traffic, and it's relatively complex. I
don't know that there's any way to accomplish it currently from the list
management end.
>
>
> ....
>
>> I'm guessing your auto-responder to unsubs would advise them to
>> subscribe, and to filter list traffic into a separate mailbox so it
>> doesn't overwhelm their normal mail -- but they often just want an
>> answer to their specific problem and not any kind of real relationship
>
> The idea was to keep their stuff off the list - just to provide a
> 'best guess' answer, directions to a (currently non-existent?????)
> web-based FAQ, plus instructions that they could subscribe to contact
> real people if they still had a problem.
Ah. This looks as if it has potential to at least cut down the volume of
repetitive questions, and give us someplace to point people when they
ask them (whether subscribed or not). Right now, a lot of us have
basically "canned" responses to some situations, and that's part of what
I'm collecting into my documentation. We still fall into the forced
subscription case, though, when they don't recognize their problem in
the FAQ or it's actually not covered there.
>
>
>> with the list. I don't think they'd be likely to follow such advice,
>> even if they knew how, and many would not. Also, trying to identify
>
> Agreed. But at what point do you decide people who /will/ not help
> themselves (eg basic computer use training) should not consume scarce
> resources for hand-holding them?
That's a personal choice, of course -- we're a remarkably diverse bunch
here and our tolerance covers a very wide spectrum!
>
>> unsub-me messages is pretty easy for people but not nearly so easy
>> for an automated process, and there are other things that interfere
>> with the
>
> Maybe. I'm sure a lot could be picked up though, and trigger the
> 'please respond to finish the unsub' mechanism.
>
>> unsubscribe process besides simply not sending the correct unsub
>> request. (The worst of these is when the subscribed account is unknown
>
> See above re sending to server to remain on list.
>
>> or inaccessible.) I think you'd still have plenty of both problems
>> (getting messages to unsubbed posters, and failed unsubs), even after
>> all the work. I'm working up some documentation to discuss here,
>> almost done.
>
> I'll look forward to that. Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the thoughts!
PatrickG
>
> Mike Scott wrote:
> > Barbara Duprey wrote:
> > ....
> >>> One issue (at least on 'users') is that some subscribed users claim
> >>> never to have subscribed. A seeming impossibility, and presumably
> >>> they're either /very/ forgetful, or they've shared their email
> >>> address with someone.
Barbara - been quite busy with work so more lurking than involvement. Looking
back through several of the posts from "unsubbed" posters I don't see much of
commonality except that several appear to have come via Gmane.
In replying via gmane the top of the page displays:
Compose a message to send to gmane.comp.openoffice.general
Your email address below has to be valid. An authorization email will be sent
to you after posting. You have to reply to that message to confirm that you
exist.
After you've confirmed your existence, the message will then be forwarded to
the mailing list.
No indication that you are subscribing to a mailing list. Not sure yet what the
confirmation message contains, but will soon know as I am sending this via an
unsubbed address.
PatrickG
PatrickG
> Mike Scott wrote:
>> Barbara Duprey wrote:
>> ....
>>>> One issue (at least on 'users') is that some subscribed users claim
>>>> never to have subscribed. A seeming impossibility, and presumably
>>>> they're either /very/ forgetful, or they've shared their email
>>>> address with someone.
>>>> Worth some more thought -- I'm especially interested as a solution
>>>> to the unknown/inaccessible subscriber. There is an immediate
>>>> solution (using the Return-Path header), but that has to be
>>>> implemented by the person getting the unwanted traffic, and it's
>>>> relatively complex. I don't know that there's any way to accomplish
>>>> it currently from the list management end.
Barbara - been busy with work since we last discussed the unsubbed issue
and testing but thought I would jump in on this again.
The only commonality I see in the unsubbed "unsubscribe me" requests is
that several appear to ocome via Gmane. With that in mind, I posted a
reply to this message via an unsubbed address (which is unfortunately
going to cause a duplicate reply). Posting this way, there is no
indication to the poster that they are subscribing to a mailing list
vice posting to a newslist/forum.
be no
From the reply screen:
Compose a message to send to gmane.comp.openoffice.general
Your email address below has to be valid. An authorization email
will be sent to you after posting. You have to reply to that message
to confirm that you exist.
After you've confirmed your existence, the message will then be
forwarded to the mailing list.
After posting:
You've now posted to gmane.comp.openoffice.general. If this
is the first time you've posted to this group, expect to get a
confirmation email.
From the "confirmation email":
You have sent a message to be posted on the
gmane.comp.openoffice.general newsgroup.
Before the message is posted on the newsgroup, you have
to confirm that you exist. Just reply to this message, and
the message will be posted.
You have to respond within one week.
And from replying to the confirmation email:
You are now authorized to post to the
gmane.comp.openoffice.general newsgroup.
The original message you sent to the newsgroup will be
posted within ten minutes.
If you have any questions, they are most likely answered
in the FAQ: <URL: http://gmane.org/faq.php>.
Hopefully this will help shed some light on the issue..
Barbara Duprey
> Barbara Duprey writes:
>
>> Mike Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Barbara Duprey wrote:
>>> ....
>>>
>>>>> One issue (at least on 'users') is that some subscribed users claim
>>>>> never to have subscribed. A seeming impossibility, and presumably
>>>>> they're either /very/ forgetful, or they've shared their email
>>>>> address with someone.
>>>>>
>
> Barbara - been quite busy with work so more lurking than involvement. Looking
> back through several of the posts from "unsubbed" posters I don't see much of
> commonality except that several appear to have come via Gmane.
>
If they are actually using Gmane, they show as subscribed; there's an
"Injected via Gmane" header that satisfies the test for whether the
poster is subscribed; the messages will not be sent to the moderator.
There can be confusion if they post from another account, which would
not show as subscribed, or directly from the account they identified to
Gmane (which may or may not be a gmail address) -- ditto. I haven't
noticed much of that, though. To further compound this, sometimes people
are subscribed both directly and through Gmane; they really should
unsubscribe from the list, or they'll get the messages both as e-mail
and when they read the newsgroup.
> In replying via gmane the top of the page displays:
>
> Compose a message to send to gmane.comp.openoffice.general
>
> Your email address below has to be valid. An authorization email will be sent
> to you after posting. You have to reply to that message to confirm that you
> exist.
>
> After you've confirmed your existence, the message will then be forwarded to
> the mailing list.
>
> No indication that you are subscribing to a mailing list. Not sure yet what the
> confirmation message contains, but will soon know as I am sending this via an
> unsubbed address.
>
> PatrickG
>
As far as Gmane is concerned, they aren't posting to a mailing list, but
to a newsgroup. All the confirmations will be Gmane's own, this list is
not involved.
PatrickG
> PatrickG wrote:
>
> If they are actually using Gmane, they show as subscribed; there's an
> "Injected via Gmane" header that satisfies the test for whether the
> poster is subscribed; the messages will not be sent to the moderator.
> There can be confusion if they post from another account, which would
> not show as subscribed, or directly from the account they identified
> to Gmane (which may or may not be a gmail address) -- ditto. I haven't
> noticed much of that, though. To further compound this, sometimes
> people are subscribed both directly and through Gmane; they really
> should unsubscribe from the list, or they'll get the messages both as
> e-mail and when they read the newsgroup.
how would anyone become subscribed without knowing. Even if some
unscrupulous individual initiates a subscription for someone elses
address, they still have to respond to the confirmation to complete
subscription.
That being said, the one thing that seems to be missing form the list(s)
via Collab.net/mailman is the option to disable receiving list e-mail
while still remaining subscribed.
I guess it's back to the drawing board
Patrick G.
Larry Gusaas
> The only commonality I see in the unsubbed "unsubscribe me" requests is
> that several appear to ocome via Gmane.
Do they have the header "X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/" ? All
posts made through gmane include that header.
> With that in mind, I posted a
> reply to this message via an unsubbed address (which is unfortunately
> going to cause a duplicate reply). Posting this way, there is no
> indication to the poster that they are subscribing to a mailing list
> vice posting to a newslist/forum.
That is because you are not subscribing to a mailing list. You will get
no emails from the list. Messages are read using your newsreader, and
posts are made through gmane.
> <clip />
> And from replying to the confirmation email:
>
> You are now authorized to post to the
> gmane.comp.openoffice.general newsgroup.
>
> The original message you sent to the newsgroup will be
> posted within ten minutes.
And now you can post to the newsgroup using your newsreader. All posts
to the newsgroup are forwarded to the mailing list. You are not
subscribed to the mailing list.
Using gmane has nothing to do with subscribing or unsubscribing to the
mailing list.
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
Harold Fuchs
<snip>
> If they are actually using Gmane, they show as subscribed; there's an
> "Injected via Gmane" header that satisfies the test for whether the
> poster is subscribed; the messages will not be sent to the moderator.
<snip>
Barbara,
Is this correct? Recently you noticed that some of my posts were marked
as having been moderated and I said it was because I was using Gmane. At
the time that was accepted but, from what you say now it seems I was
wrong and had been doing something else (which I can't explain).
Just as a test, this message is being sent via Gmane from an e-mail
address that is subscribed to the newsgroup
gmane.comp.openoffice.general but is *not* subscribed to discuss <at>
openoffice.org. I'll be interested to see how it appears in the mail list.
--
Harold Fuchs
Barbara Duprey
> Barbara Duprey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If they are actually using Gmane, they show as subscribed; there's an
>> "Injected via Gmane" header that satisfies the test for whether the
>> poster is subscribed; the messages will not be sent to the moderator.
>
> <snip>
>
> Barbara,
>
> Is this correct? Recently you noticed that some of my posts were
> marked as having been moderated and I said it was because I was using
> Gmane. At the time that was accepted but, from what you say now it
> seems I was wrong and had been doing something else (which I can't
> explain).
>
> Just as a test, this message is being sent via Gmane from an e-mail
> address that is subscribed to the newsgroup
> gmane.comp.openoffice.general but is *not* subscribed to discuss <at>
> openoffice.org. I'll be interested to see how it appears in the mail
> list.
>
I'll see if I can find our old communications about this, but as I
recall, you were using the same account you gave Gmane but e-mailing
directly, not posting through Gmane.. As you've undoubtedly noted, this
Gmane message is not moderated.
Harold Fuchs
> Barbara Duprey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If they are actually using Gmane, they show as subscribed; there's an
>> "Injected via Gmane" header that satisfies the test for whether the
>> poster is subscribed; the messages will not be sent to the moderator.
>
> <snip>
>
> Barbara,
>
> Is this correct? Recently you noticed that some of my posts were
> marked as having been moderated and I said it was because I was using
> Gmane. At the time that was accepted but, from what you say now it
> seems I was wrong and had been doing something else (which I can't
> explain).
>
> Just as a test, this message is being sent via Gmane from an e-mail
> address that is subscribed to the newsgroup
> gmane.comp.openoffice.general but is *not* subscribed to discuss <at>
> openoffice.org. I'll be interested to see how it appears in the mail
> list.
>
Barbara, said it would. Hmm.
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Barbara Duprey
> Harold Fuchs wrote:
>> Barbara Duprey wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If they are actually using Gmane, they show as subscribed; there's
>>> an "Injected via Gmane" header that satisfies the test for whether
>>> the poster is subscribed; the messages will not be sent to the
>>> moderator.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Barbara,
>>
>> Is this correct? Recently you noticed that some of my posts were
>> marked as having been moderated and I said it was because I was using
>> Gmane. At the time that was accepted but, from what you say now it
>> seems I was wrong and had been doing something else (which I can't
>> explain).
>>
>> Just as a test, this message is being sent via Gmane from an e-mail
>> address that is subscribed to the newsgroup
>> gmane.comp.openoffice.general but is *not* subscribed to discuss <at>
>> openoffice.org. I'll be interested to see how it appears in the mail
>> list.
>>
> Well, wrong again. The above message arrived *un*moderated, just as
> you, Barbara, said it would. Hmm.
And this message sent from your googlemail account gets moderated.
Harold Fuchs
> Harold Fuchs wrote:
>> Harold Fuchs wrote:
>>> Barbara Duprey wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> If they are actually using Gmane, they show as subscribed; there's
>>>> an "Injected via Gmane" header that satisfies the test for whether
>>>> the poster is subscribed; the messages will not be sent to the
>>>> moderator.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Barbara,
>>>
>>> Is this correct? Recently you noticed that some of my posts were
>>> marked as having been moderated and I said it was because I was
>>> using Gmane. At the time that was accepted but, from what you say
>>> now it seems I was wrong and had been doing something else (which I
>>> can't explain).
>>>
>>> Just as a test, this message is being sent via Gmane from an e-mail
>>> address that is subscribed to the newsgroup
>>> gmane.comp.openoffice.general but is *not* subscribed to discuss
>>> <at> openoffice.org. I'll be interested to see how it appears in the
>>> mail list.
>>>
>> Well, wrong again. The above message arrived *un*moderated, just as
>> you, Barbara, said it would. Hmm.
>
> And this message sent from your googlemail account gets moderated.
>
>
that causes its "from" address to be wrongly set under some
circumstances. I have separate TB accounts, each with its own address It
seems that sending from one sometimes uses the address of another. I
haven't yet figured out what causes this. My recent unmoderated message
was sent from this [subscribed] account, using the Reply button but
another [unsubscribed] account's address was used as the From address.
Ho hum.
Hopefully this will be unmoderated.
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Barbara Duprey
Nope -- also from the googlemail account, also moderated. Your outgoing
SMTP server is usually the same for all accounts, Thunderbird seems to
dislike trying to use different ones. Might that have something to do
with it?
Larry Gusaas
When sending an email through a google mail account with Thunderbird,
you need to send through a SMTP server set to the name of your
Googlemail account. If you send from through a SMTP server set to a
different Googlemail account, Googlemail changes the from address to the
name of the account you sent through. This is one of the peculiarities
of gmail.
Thunderbird easily handles using multiple SMTP servers. I have nine
different ones.
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PatrickG
> Harold Fuchs wrote:
>> Hopefully this will be unmoderated.
>
> Nope -- also from the googlemail account, also moderated. Your
> outgoing SMTP server is usually the same for all accounts, Thunderbird
> seems to dislike trying to use different ones. Might that have
> something to do with it?
Additionally, and I think this is more of Harold's issue as both his
account appear to be googlemail, TB supports multiple Identities. This
allows you to select the appropriate "from" via a drop down when
composing messages. (I have 5 SMTP servers and 10 identities across 7
e-mail accounts). Now if only TB had a template manager similar to that
of The Bat! :-)
PatrickG
Douglas St.Clair
PS I do know ways around it but it is a pain.
On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:24 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> Thunderbird easily handles using multiple SMTP servers. I have nine different ones.
Captain Nice
cptn...@gmail.com
"I love my computer, because my friends live in it!"