In issue 331 our dictator said...        (<grin> for the humor impaired)
 
>With that out of the way, do people think it's worth going back
>on autopilot for a while?  It was working pretty well.
 
Is it possible to set things up so that one must be a subscriber in order
to post things?  That should cut down on the possibility of junk getting
posted.  Wouldn't stop a clever forgery, of course, but otherwise I would
think it can do the trick.
 
[This is one of the things I pondered about a week back.  Unfortunately,
the From: lines aren't reliable, and won't necessarily match the database.
Indeed, they can be different each time the *same* person sends a message
in.  And, of course, forging them is dead trivial.  I wouldn't consider
it "clever" to be able to get around it.
 
I did have some ideas on how to reject the specific one that we
were (not) interested in, but, again, rather unreliable.  Would need
so much manual intervention to be not worth while.  Unless somebody's
got an AI engine that can apply the "policy" ;-)]
 
>...a couple of unsubscribes, I think it's probably worth opening
>up discussion of whether I'm doing the right thing or not.
 
I tend to think that a couple of unsubscribes is more indicative of a
problem with those particular subscribers than with the ferret list. A couple
of DOZEN unsubscribes and I'd say the problem was with the list.
 
>In order to make it possible for people to speak their mind...
 
Chris, do you mean about this particular issue, or in general, once you go
onto autopilot?
 
[Only this issue.]
 
>... I have come up with a way for you to "post" anonymously if you wish.
>If it's okay with Bill that is.  Namely, send your comments to Bill
>Gruber ([log in to unmask]), he'll strip the identification
>information, and submit it as an anonymous message to the list.
 
If you mean about this particular issue, sure, people can filter things
through me if they prefer to comment anonymously, though I don't understand
why people would think it necessary, but if THEY feel it necessary, I guess
that's good enough reason for me.
 
[And as we see below, somebody did think it necessary.]
 
If you mean to send anonymous postings to me in general, I guess that's ok
too, but wouldn't a better solution be to have people send them to something
like [log in to unmask] which would automatically at least
strip the headers or perhaps forward it to Chris first?   Of course, if
people do send general anon postings to me, it would be with the understanding
that I am NOT on autopilot so I can't guarantee any particular turnaround
time.
 
[I've been pondering several ideas to make anonymous posting automatic
for the anon members.  But this wouldn't work for this specific issue.
There's nothing that I could do that would make postings guaranteed
anonymous to *me*.  Besides, even if I said so, nobody would believe me.
Except by ID stripping before it gets to this machine.]
 
>I'll leave things off autopilot for a while so that I can regulate
>flow to something manageable if a lynch mob gets rolling.
>Bill can report on whether I've interfered with the contents.
 
I lost you here... what can I report on?
 
[Whether I "interfere" with the anonymous comments.]
 
For the record, I've been involved in running quite a few lists (we run
32 here at cunyvm, though most of em aren't public) and every now and
then someone has something to complain about, it gets out of hand, and
two or three subscribers call it quits.  It's hard to please everyone,
and those who drop out often simply had different expectations about the
list's purpose.  I think the ferret list is one of the best run lists I've
encountered - Chris' comments are usually succinct and well placed and the
"rules" he listed seem quite reasonable to me - I really don't expect to
see a lynch mob forming any time soon (unless, of course, Chris decides
to put the list on autopilot :-)).
 
If all else fails, I can set the list up as a LISTSERV list here at CUNYVM
where each posting gets automatically distributed as soon as it's received -
i.e. the way most mailing lists work - and subscribes/unsubscribes
would be handled automatically by the software.  It wouldn't be the same
thing at all, but if Chris feels he MUST bow out because of time pressures
or whatever (and I don't think he's saying that, are you Chris?)
 
[Not at this point.  It's still within bounds.  I'm trying to improve
things by automating stuff, and staying on autopilot.]
 
 ... at least
the list would remain alive for the time being.   The logs of the back
issues would, of course, continue to exist/be updated as well.  I am most
definitely NOT suggesting things should work this way, but if it is the
only way, then it is certainly better than nothing, and not all that much
extra work on my end.
 
[We need to do a little chatting on this off-line.]
 
Anyhow, I hope I am right in saying that Chris is much appreciated and need
not be concerned about the latest round of weirdness.
 
Bill
 
[Posted in FML issue 0332]