On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Pure bluster. You have no data about "floods of new installations",
We turn up X customers a week. We see X customers a week running
into problems and getting blacklisted for backscatter. This is the
"flood" I am trying to solve.
What is your problem? I'm solving a technical issue. This kind of
personal attack is irrelevant, and pointless. I don't care.
Huh? How exactly are you going to shut off the feature in an existing installation?
- By fiat from the ISP, eg as you threaten to change your AUP. This would be most likely to well-received by ISP clients if combined with:
It's not a change of AUP. Mailman currently violates the AUP.
And yes, we can force them to fix their installations with good
documentation. We have it, but people protest that you don't support
it. That was why I said two things were necessary - a documentation
fix and a defaults fix. Read my original posts.
implied changes to the code, of course) would shut off the autoreplies for *every* existing Mailman installation that upgrades. This will not be feasible with your proposed change to 2.1.10.
I don't care what changes are made. Don't waste time on my proposal,
do something better.
Sorry, as stated your proposal sounds either naive or insane.
No, just radical and unlikely to be implemented. But if implemented it will do one heck of a lot more for the backscatter problem than panicking as you propose we do.
Hyperbole like this wastes everyone's time.
I don't care what is done. Do something that makes it better.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness