on Thu, Apr 11, 2002, Patrick Kirk (patrick@kirks.net) wrote:
> Ben has a good idea about a consensual agreement as part of
> subscribing. Rather than dive straight into what goes into this
> agreement, perhaps its worth asking a three questions:
>
> 1. What problem do we have that needs to be addressed?
> 2. How do we address these problems in a way that /encourages/ people
> to come here for help if they need it?
> 3. How can we make sure that the list "regulars" are not subjected to
> email they would prefer not to see?
> Ben's first rule "No spam" - I don't know if we get spam from
> subscribers. But a sensible thing to ask for.
Goes to common sense. I suspect the population of spam reporters on d-u
is likely higher than elsewhere on the net.
> Ben's second rule "No html" - why? Are there still email clients that
> can't render html?
Yes.
> I use Evolution and mutt. Both work fine with html.
HTML does a few things:
- In most cases, it's bloat.
- In many cases, it's filtered out. I generally delete such mail,
though I'll sometimes send a response that plain text is preferred.
- It gives rise to both abuse and security issues. HTML begets
Javascript and web bugs, beget Flash.... KISS my ASCII.
- It frequently munges replies. Nested, attributed, quotes, with a
clear demarkation of who said what, is a hallmark of a smoothly
functioning mailing list. Where it doesn't munge replies, it borks
archives.
I'm subscribed to another list which is very high volume, and
focusses largely on entertainment industry issues. Reader habits
are highly different: bottom quoting, a wide mix of mailers, much
HTML mail, varying quote markers, little if any response
trimming.... I find the mess barely readable (and haven't looked at
it yet this week). If d-u ever descends to this level, I'm out.
> People who subscribe from work often will have no say on this.
- The obvious answer: don't subscribe from work. Use a dialup. SSH
out to another system. Additionally, _most_ mailers allow
enabling/disabling of HTML.
> I remember the horror of Lotus Notes in a previous employer. I
> couldn't even get it to mark letters I replied to as replied to let
> alone change the mail format.
No comment.
> Others have suggested no attachments. Why? What attachments have
> caused problems?
Screenshots of xterms with error messages....
Attachments require common sense. I'd favor, generally, open-format
attachments, particularly those which are readable in an ASCII. I
_encourage_ GPG signatures (privacy is a good -- and signed messages are
readable in a text browser). _Small_, relevant, attachments are useful.
For larger content, a link to a website is appropriate.
> Are there some mail clients out there that force you to read
> attachemnts? Really, I am puzzled as to why cutting and pasting a
> long file would be felt to be better than attaching it.
Mutt tends to render a lot of stuff inline.
> If I might make a suggestion, why not offer a debian-user .procmailrc
> and .forward that does get rid oof stuff you don't need. Most of the
> irratations that Steve and others describe simply don't affect you if
> you have even minimal filters set up. I have a .forward that filters
> over 20 bits of spam daily.
The same people who operate from work behind Exchange or other corporate
systems also likely lack procmail or other (effective) filtering tools.
While there may be justice in this, I don't think it's a goal to strive
for. Keeping the list clean up front would spare all.
My beef wasn't aimed at all Outlook/Exchange subscribers. It's aimed at
anyone who'se behind a system that handles list mail in an antisocial
manner. Outlook/Exchange seem to be common sources for such incidents,
but are by no means the only culprits. The point I want to make is that
if you're going to participate in a list, you have to behave yourself in
public.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act:
Feinstein's answer to Enron envy.
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html
Attachment:
pgpYhmb6uH1n2.pgp
Description: PGP signature