At 11:37 AM -0700 7/23/98, Mike Nolan wrote:
>In addition to the concerns expressed earlier here that this be a complement
>to traditional e-mail validation procedures rather than a replacement
>for them, I wonder whether this will sufficiently prove that new users
>have both inbound and outbound e-mail connectivity with my lists?
Agreed. this isn't a replacement, but a supplement.
>I've had more than a few instances of users who could send me e-mail but
>not receive it from me, or vice versa, due to a variety of problems.
>(And at least one case of someone who could send me e-mail from his
>shell account, but not from his browser.)
Well, nothing's 100% perfect. What are the tradeoffs? do we reduce problems
for users? What's the scope of the problem? IMHO, a risk analysis would
likely show that we improve live for a good number of users, make it worse
for very few, and simply shift an existing problem around for a few more...
So why not?
>I rather like the subscribe/acknowledge/confirm mechanism, anyone who
>gets through it has not only demonstrated connectivity but at least some
>marginal amount of both computer and general literacy, traits that seems to
>be all too infrequently displayed on the Internet.
But unless your lists are about computer literacy, why should that be a
requirement to join? Without using the "E" word and starting the elitist
wars, isn't it the admin's job to be technical and do the nerd work, and
the user's job to be a user? Do we have competency requirments to use mail
lists? Why?
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>
(Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
USENET is like Gene Wolfe's soldier in the mists. Every day, it
wakes up and sees everything as new.
