Mike Scott wrote:
Barbara Duprey wrote:
....
One issue (at least on 'users') is that some subscribed users claim
never to have subscribed. A seeming impossibility, and presumably
they're either /very/ forgetful, or they've shared their email
address with someone.
I've been asking those folks for information about what happened, so
far no result. But I'm afraid there's a real hole there on the OOo
side. Consider the guy who was certain he couldn't unsubscribe
because when he tried to reply to the confirmation message, his mail
program would not accept the "To" address due to the equals sign in
it. He'd have had the
Hmmm. If every broken mail client has to be worked round.......
doesn't bear thinking about.
Actually, the list manager accommodates this by allowing the "To"
address to be placed in the subject line of a [listname]-request
command. It's just that people usually don't notice that part of the
admin info they get. Since subjects are basically not restricted, this
works OK.
I wonder, maybe subscriptions might be automatically dropped if
nothing's received by the server (maybe just a response to an
automated 'are you still there' query) in any period of, what, say 6
months from any given email address. Just a mad idea to float, and I
recognise that some people 'lurk' on lists.
Worth some more thought -- I'm especially interested as a solution to
the unknown/inaccessible subscriber. There is an immediate solution
(using the Return-Path header), but that has to be implemented by the
person getting the unwanted traffic, and it's relatively complex. I
don't know that there's any way to accomplish it currently from the list
management end.
....
I'm guessing your auto-responder to unsubs would advise them to
subscribe, and to filter list traffic into a separate mailbox so it
doesn't overwhelm their normal mail -- but they often just want an
answer to their specific problem and not any kind of real relationship
The idea was to keep their stuff off the list - just to provide a
'best guess' answer, directions to a (currently non-existent?????)
web-based FAQ, plus instructions that they could subscribe to contact
real people if they still had a problem.
Ah. This looks as if it has potential to at least cut down the volume of
repetitive questions, and give us someplace to point people when they
ask them (whether subscribed or not). Right now, a lot of us have
basically "canned" responses to some situations, and that's part of what
I'm collecting into my documentation. We still fall into the forced
subscription case, though, when they don't recognize their problem in
the FAQ or it's actually not covered there.
with the list. I don't think they'd be likely to follow such advice,
even if they knew how, and many would not. Also, trying to identify
Agreed. But at what point do you decide people who /will/ not help
themselves (eg basic computer use training) should not consume scarce
resources for hand-holding them?
That's a personal choice, of course -- we're a remarkably diverse bunch
here and our tolerance covers a very wide spectrum!
unsub-me messages is pretty easy for people but not nearly so easy
for an automated process, and there are other things that interfere
with the
Maybe. I'm sure a lot could be picked up though, and trigger the
'please respond to finish the unsub' mechanism.
unsubscribe process besides simply not sending the correct unsub
request. (The worst of these is when the subscribed account is unknown
See above re sending to server to remain on list.
or inaccessible.) I think you'd still have plenty of both problems
(getting messages to unsubbed posters, and failed unsubs), even after
all the work. I'm working up some documentation to discuss here,
almost done.
I'll look forward to that. Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the thoughts!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
