[Fwd: Re: rawhide report: 20060207 changes]

[Christopher A. Williams]

On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 13:58 +0100, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 07:48 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 February 2006 07:01, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> > > That's already been done by someone, who has indicated they weren't
> > > able to determine who it was.
> > 
> > I don't remember ever getting one. I think it would be worth a try. I'm ready 
> > for the nuclear option.
> > 
> > Regarding having everyone re-enroll. If their anti-spam system really requires 
> > a response to let the mail through, they probably aren't reading any of this 
> > mail about what a PITA they are. I also wonder if the signup mail would even 
> > get through to them since our mail system won't reply to the antispam email. 
> > 
> My wild guess:
> - Person signs up using his yahoo.com (or whatever) e-mail address.
> - Person gets an offer for this cool anti-spam uol.com.br e-mail address
> - Person decided to go for it and forwards his old address to it.
> - People on this list get annoyed (including me since i am sending an
> e-mail again.

I too am ready for the nuclear option. Frankly, I also think this solves
other problems as well. For example, when Mike wrote:

"That wouldn't solve anything.  Some people would just not bother
resubscribing due to laziness or not caring.  Those that would
resubscribe, certainly would not preclude the problematic person,
so nothing would be gained.  The majority of list subscribers
would be annoyed with no real world gain."

I would definitely disagree. It's more a question of how this is done.
If there's sufficient communication ahead of time (and that's more than
1 e-mail sent out) that everyone will have to re-enroll on, say, Friday
of next week, people will have expectations set. Those that choose not
to resubscribe out of laziness or not caring probably aren't really the
type that make consistent, positive contributions and this might be
their wake-up call to action. That the problematic person would not be
included is an absolute solution to the initial problem - everything
would be gained as the goal of the nuclear option would be met. As long
as the reasons why the nuclear option is needed are communicated clearly
and concisely with plenty of notice when it is done - in fact, send a
last reminder message that it is happening just before executing it -
you minimize the level of annoyance for those resubscribing.

At least for me, it's much more convenient to click a URL and
resubscribe to this list than to resort to the tactics of asking my ISP
to ban a domain, maintain filters, etc.

I vote for the clear/resubscribe option.

Cheers,

Chris


-- 
======================
"Never murder a man when he's
busy committing suicide."

-- Woodrow Wilson