[Mailman-Users] Re: remove this?

[Bill Warner]

At 12:15 AM 5/9/01 -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
>There is a critical difference.  X does allow you and even makes it
>very easy to do damned near anything you want, encluding being
>incredibly stupid and making bad decisions.  In a general light,
>this is not a Bad Thing.  One critical aspect however is that should
>you do one of those stupid things you only break/damage yourself
>(person running the broken app).  A perfect example is X server
>grabs.

But, grabbing is so much fun!

> > Unfortunately, if you don't buy the "mechanism, not policy"
> > approach then you probably won't buy this argument either.
>
>Actually I buy and agree with both arguments, I just consider them
>misplaced in this case.  They work very well elsewhere.

I think they are appropriate here too.  It just seems to me that an adamant 
stance against configurability is actually more harmful to the stated goal 
of promoting wider acceptance of 2369 than allowing a per-list 
configuration would be.  Here's why I say that:

(a) Most mailman-owners will run with the defaults anyway, so all of their 
messages will still be 2369ized.

(b) Those of us that have problems in this area can 2369ize our lists one, 
or a few, at a time, where appropriate, and bring our users along at a rate 
that we can manage.  Since only we can determine what that rate is, only we 
can make that decision for ourselves.

So, bottom line, I agree that 2369 compliance is good for Mailman and a 
worthy goal for all mailman-owners.  A per-list configuration option would 
make it easier for me, and based on what I've read in the archive, others, 
to migrate towards full 2369 compliance, and therefore more likely that 
we'll do it.  That sounds like a good thing to me.

OTOH, a strident "hack it or take a hike" anti-configuration stance (some 
of the messages in the archive are downright hostile) actually makes it 
harder for me, and others, to migrate towards full 2369 compliance, which 
means it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.  I'll simply hack the 2369 
headers out by the roots and that will be the end of it as far as I'm 
concerned.  And that, I submit, undermines the goal of rapid widespread 
compliance.

Anyway, <shrug>, that's how the picture looks from where I sit.

>Trade offs.  The high road.  Those that leave are typically
>(experience) better off gone, and (experience) their replacements
>are much more valuable and numerous.

I don't disagree with anything you said here about FAQs, user education, or 
customer/list member relations.  I think you are right on all counts.  The 
problem is, that at this particular moment in time, I simply cannot afford 
(in time or $$) to take the high road without just a little bit of help to 
make doing so a little bit easier.  If I have to deal with this issue on an 
all or nothing basis, it's going to be nothing.

In any case, Barry has said he'll consider the 2369 configuration issue for 
2.1, and that's good enough for me!  I ask for nothing more.

> > We now return you to your regularly scheduled program about how to
> > get Mailman to run on the Linux flavor-of-the-day...
>
>Yea gods save us.

Doesn't seem likely. ;-)

--Bill