Hi On 12-09-15, at 21:17 , tj <t...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 9/15/2012 17:51, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >> >> On 12-09-15, at 11:34 , "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> >>> With regard to inappropriate messages to ooo-private, I agree that it is a >>> good idea to provide better information and to discourage the use of >>> ooo-private for this kind of traffic. I think one problem is that some >>> folks want their request to be personal and all think they are (or want to >>> be) reaching a support organization. >> >> yes. >>> >>> I conducted an experiment to see how the list rejects messages. The bounce >>> I received is the message immediately below. The original request to >>> ooo-private was returned in an attachment. That is attached to this >>> message but I don't know that it will be preserved on ooo-dev. What that >>> message is like is posted below the Rejection Message. >> >> Peter can probably speak to this, too, but when I was doing this kind of >> list and many others at OOo, I received routinely a lot of posts to >> webmasters@, usually by people wanting to communicate with a >> Turing-competent entity, like me, or even better. They reached that >> list/alias via contacts@. No matter what we wrote on that page, no matter >> how they were redirected to the Support page—no matter what, short of Moses >> and some tablets—they did what I do when confronted with voicemail and >> sought humanity in an electron. >> >> So it goes. >> >> Lesson: live with it but try all the same. >> >> Louis > > Hi, Louis, > > IIRC, I wrote to Webmaster@oo.o, about a glitch on a web page. I got a polite > little reply from a fellow whose name I recognized from the Council listing. > I was just another user, then; I was very impressed. My point is that these > contacts do serve a purpose, at least occasionally. was probably me or possibly John or Florian… Sophie also did a lot of work there. > > Hope this makes our hard-working monitors feel better. > Thanks. It does :-) Louis > /tj/ > >
