Re: *** bluber *** Re: Male xxxxxx enhancement formula^
On 5/24/05, Ian Greenhoe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 23:15 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Am 2005-05-24 13:28:04, schrieb Ian Greenhoe:
> > > 3) Reject non-subscribed senders.
> > Not acceptable.
> The question here is what's less acceptable? A bunch-o-spam or not
> having non-list subscribers be able to ask questions. I think that the
> level of spam is annoying, but less annoying than having to have people
> subscribe to the list. So, I agree with you, but I do not feel as
> vehemently as you apparently do.
Requiring people to subscribe in order to post is worse than annoying.
If a mailing list requires subscription to post, and I'm not
generally interested in the list traffic, I won't post, because the
list traffic is unacceptable. In the case of one software package I
use, that's the only way of providing any feedback to the authors.
Consequently, though I have suggestions for improving the software, I
don't send them in. Similarly, to file a bug report for gcc, you have
to sign up for a bugzilla account. I'm not going to deal with another
account (and another password), just to gripe about silliness in g++.
Your main avenue for communication with your user base *must* be open,
or there's little point in making your software open. It can be a
mailing list, a newsgroup, a comment address, or a web form, but if
users have to join a "club" to contact you, you've done something
Michael A. Marsh