Re: [Mailman-Users] Searching across lists and making global changes
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:00:34PM -0500, Brian Luria wrote:
Thanks
please don't (1) reply to list-posts off-list: send them to the list; (2) top-post
The site is hosted so I dont have shell access. Only the admin interface etc. I presume that is of no use(?)
It doesn't look that way; although if the hosts will write a wrapper to make clone_members/find_members available that may be a help.
I don't imagine you're the site-admin, either, for the lists.
That said, you might find the thread of which http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/msg41130.html is a part, of interest.
I would suggest that, in the absence of these, you get the users to bloody-well do their housekeeping themselves. Point them to the options page, if necessary, pre-fill a URI with their email address, so something like: http://lists.example.org/mailman/options/listfoo/foo@example.com where they can change their name, and see which other lists that email address is a member of.
People asking me -- as listadmin -- to change their subscriptions usually get something like "mail me the request from both the old and new address so i know it's not nefarious, or visit <http://lists.example.org/help#swapsub> for instructions on how to do it yourself."
That said, I'm grumpy, and miserable, and believe people should take responsibility for themselves.
-- ``Democracy means that if the doorbell rings in the early hours, it is likely to be the milkman.'' (Winston Churchill, attrib.)
Somebody-whom-I-don't-want-to-pick-on-in-particular writes:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:00:34PM -0500, (Some) Poor Fellow wrote:
Thanks
please don't (1) reply to list-posts off-list: send them to the list; (2) top-post
Given the recent surge in non-traditional list admins (ie, folks without a Unix or mail admin background), I feel this is excessively curt. I don't know about this particular Poor Fellow, but the generic Poor Fellow probably had no idea it wasn't going to the right place (he probably isn't subscribed, either, so he won't notice that he didn't get his own post back).
I suggest that better wording is "Please be careful to ensure that your reply is addressed to the list."
Actually there should be a FAQ for that in Section 1, so you can add "see FAQ x.yy". I suggest adding this to FAQ 1.22. Something like
1.22 How should I write my post when asking a question on this
mailing list?
Customs vary on the Internet, and while we [except for the
majority of us old Usenet curmudgeons ;-] don't want to impose our
customs on the rest of the 'Net, your questions *will* be answered
more quickly and helpfully if you observe the following:
o The first thing you should do is indicate that you've done your
homework. Look at the Mailman documentation linked from
http://www.list.org/docs.html. Search the Frequently Asked
Questions in the wiki. Search the archives of the mailing list
(see "How do I search the archives of the mailman-users mailing
list?").
Once you've looked through all the relevant pieces of
documentation, FAQ entries, archive messages, etc... and you
still haven't found your answer, please give us additional
information as well as the question itself. See FAQ .
Specifically, we would like to know:
1. What methods did you use to look through the documentation
and search the FAQ, mailing list archives, etc...?
2. If there were things that initially sounded relevant but
ended up not being useful to you, which ones were they?
If you did miss something that is relevant, then having this
information will help us go back and improve the
documentation/FAQ/etc... so that the next person who does the
same search will hopefully hit the correct answer.
In addition, we would appreciate it if you could provide URLs
and precise descriptions of the information you found but which
was not helpful to you.
o If you have a specific/detailed question, please proceed to FAQ
entry 1.23 at "I have a specific-detailed question -- What kind
of information do I need to provide when posting a question to
this mailing list?"
See also FAQ entry 4.78 "Troubleshooting- No mail going out to
lists members."
With this information, we are much more likely to be able to
provide you assistance with your question.
o Be careful to ensure that your reply is addressed to the list.
The widespread practice of "Reply-To munging" is *not*
implemented on our lists because it makes it difficult (and
sometimes impossible) to send a private reply. Because this
need is frequent in working on Mailman issues (many questions
involve details of network and host configuration that could be
used by crackers to compromise security), we do not set
Reply-To to the list. (Reply-To munging is not a good idea in
most cases; see Chip Rosenthal's essay "Reply-To Munging
Considered Harmful".)
o It is a very good idea to subscribe to the list, or at least
follow the thread in the archives. For various reasons,
related posts may *not* be addressed to you, but only to the
list. It would be a shame if you missed them.
o Once you've sent your post, *wait* at least 48 hours for it to
be forwarded to you or appear in the archives before assuming
it got lost. Because we must allow non-members to post, we are
relatively vulnerable to spam, and the lists are *moderated* by
rather busy volunteers.
Also, make sure that any spamblocking software you have is
*off* for a while; you will get no sympathy at all if you block
a reply (and note you don't know where it will come from,
because the respondent may feel that the required information
is sensitive, and should not be discussed in public -- see #2
above). No sympathy for the delay itself, and many of the less
frequent contributors will ignore you completely thereafter.
(The core people will still take care of you, but about half
the useful answers come from the peanut gallery -- it's a
significant resource.)
o Avoid top-posting (adding a quick comment to the top of a
message, leaving the automatically included quoted block
intact. The people who provide the best answers are used to a
style in which irrelevant details in the quote are *trimmed*
(deleted), and in which responses to specific points appear
*inline*, ie, immediately below the statements or questions
they refer to. We don't ask you to like this style; however,
it is a fact that most of us will be irritated if we scan to
the bottom of a long quote and discover we just wasted as
little as 5 seconds doing so.
In general, conforming to the practices of "Netiquette" will
smooth the path to resolving your Mailman issues. It's not
just a matter of conforming to the "peculiar institutions" of
the Mailman community: these practices are actually more
effective in this context. [needs URL for netiquette]
Sorry, I'm Confluence-differently-abled at the moment. Assuming nobody thinks this is a terrible idea, I'll eventually get to posting this myself, but if somebody wants to speed up the process, I wouldn't object. :-)
In case it's not obvious, stuff in [square brackets] should not be cut/pasted to the FAQ.
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 14:55 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Somebody-whom-I-don't-want-to-pick-on-in-particular writes:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:00:34PM -0500, (Some) Poor Fellow wrote:
Thanks
please don't (1) reply to list-posts off-list: send them to the list; (2) top-post
Given the recent surge in non-traditional list admins (ie, folks without a Unix or mail admin background), I feel this is excessively curt.
Stephen, with all due respect for the work you put into your post, I think it goes a bit overboard in the other direction. If I can pose a question in 6 or 7 lines of text, do I really need to read a couple of hundred lines of instruction? - or dig through a FAQ and write a critique of it - just to get a simple answer?
I recently posted a question to this list in about 7 lines inquiring as to what file is the source document in a Mailman Pipermail archive. I asked on the list precisely _because_ I didn't want to spend the time searching through FAQs and other documentation for a simple answer to a simple question. Mark kindly answered my question within a few minutes with two lines - one with the name of the file in question and the second with the URL of a wiki entry discussing the matter in some detail (thank you, Mark!).
I think your post has some good ideas, but needs a generous application of the KISS principle :-)
--
Lindsay Haisley | "Never expect the people who caused a problem
FMP Computer Services | to solve it." - Albert Einstein
512-259-1190 |
http://www.fmp.com |
Lindsay Haisley writes:
Stephen, with all due respect for the work you put into your post, I think it goes a bit overboard in the other direction. If I can pose a question in 6 or 7 lines of text, do I really need to read a couple of hundred lines of instruction?
It's under 100 lines, of which almost half were cut-and-pasted from the existing FAQ 1.22.
- or dig through a FAQ and write a critique of it - just to get a simple answer?
Yup, that's exactly the stuff I cut and pasted.
Anyway, you're entirely missing the point. I don't expect anybody to read FAQ 1.22 in advance of comitting a faux pas; this particular FAQ is mostly for pointing to *afterward*.
I recently posted a question to this list in about 7 lines inquiring as to what file is the source document in a Mailman Pipermail archive. I asked on the list precisely _because_ I didn't want to spend the time searching through FAQs and other documentation for a simple answer to a simple question.
Er, that's precisely what FAQs and documentation in general are for, so I suggest you go read the current version of FAQ 1.22, then. It was written for people like you.<wink>
More seriously, you've been around long enough (and have presumably actually perused the FAQ once or twice) to have a sense of what's *not* in there. You're obviously not the audience for FAQ 1.22, and the question you describe is not one of the ones that Mark should make a New Year's resolution to stop answering.
Hi,
Excuse the top-posting. :)
When I first had to look at the FAQs and subscribe to this list to get some problems sorted, there were two FAQs. There may will still be. It appeared to me that the much shorter one was by far the more visible, and I only found the main WIKI-based FAQ when I went to look in the WIKI, which seemed to me an obvious thing to do but might not to people less familiar with open source projects and their methodologies.
I think that two things would cut down on the "see the FAQ" type questions:
Get rid of the non-WIKI FAQ, merging any content that's not already in the WIKI, then point everyone there. The WIKI FAQ is an excellent resource, and I'm sure many people would find the answers to their questions if they knew to look there.
In the places where this list is mentioned, make it clear that this list, which is given as the main support address for Mailman, is a mailing list, that it's a moderated list so posts may take a day or two to be sent, and that we cannot reset your password for you or other types of things that specific hosting providers need to do. A comment about the various forks of Mailman which can't really be supported might also be a good idea.
Just my 2c as a person who's come on board here in the past couple of months.
Geoff.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> To: <fmouse@fmp.com> Cc: <mailman-users@python.org> Sent: Friday, 18 December, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Meta: bringing along the newcomers
Lindsay Haisley writes:
Stephen, with all due respect for the work you put into your post, I think it goes a bit overboard in the other direction. If I can pose a question in 6 or 7 lines of text, do I really need to read a couple of hundred lines of instruction?
It's under 100 lines, of which almost half were cut-and-pasted from the existing FAQ 1.22.
- or dig through a FAQ and write a critique of it - just to get a simple answer?
Yup, that's exactly the stuff I cut and pasted.
Anyway, you're entirely missing the point. I don't expect anybody to read FAQ 1.22 in advance of comitting a faux pas; this particular FAQ is mostly for pointing to *afterward*.
I recently posted a question to this list in about 7 lines inquiring as to what file is the source document in a Mailman Pipermail archive. I asked on the list precisely _because_ I didn't want to spend the time searching through FAQs and other documentation for a simple answer to a simple question.
Er, that's precisely what FAQs and documentation in general are for, so I suggest you go read the current version of FAQ 1.22, then. It was written for people like you.<wink>
More seriously, you've been around long enough (and have presumably actually perused the FAQ once or twice) to have a sense of what's *not* in there. You're obviously not the audience for FAQ 1.22, and the question you describe is not one of the ones that Mark should make a New Year's resolution to stop answering.
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/geoff%40quitelikely.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4698 (20091218) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4698 (20091218) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
It's under 100 lines, of which almost half were cut-and-pasted from the existing FAQ 1.22.
Most of which I wrote, and which I probably was not in a particularly good mood when I wrote it. It definitely needs re-working.
Anyway, you're entirely missing the point. I don't expect anybody to read FAQ 1.22 in advance of comitting a faux pas; this particular FAQ is mostly for pointing to *afterward*.
Indeed. That is precisely the point.
-- Brad Knowles <bradknowles@shub-internet.org> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>
participants (5)
-
Adam McGreggor -
Brad Knowles -
Geoff Shang -
Lindsay Haisley -
Stephen J. Turnbull