Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 2010-10-22 11:38 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote: OK, then I'm back to my initial position -- since informative responses can easily come deeper in the thread, this technique (even if it were supported by the list manager capabilities) would lead to such responses failing to reach the OP without additional action by the responder. However, if the OP is given information about use of nabble, say (either by the moderator supplying general instructions, or a list member supplying a specific link to the thread), then the OP has access to *all* responses and no cc'ing would ever be required. This possibility is supported even with no changes made through the list manager. Hmmm.. Ok, another idea... Just send an auto-reply to the unsubbed OP when they post anything, with a direct link to the Nabble thread, and inform the user that they will need to get their answers from there - although they'd have to actually visit the link to know if there were any more answers... Anyway, it looks like I'm fighting a losing battle... and honestly, if the moderators don't mind all of the work, who am I to complain? I can easily just circular file the noise the situation generates... I think the best way to resolve this completely would be a Forum-Mailist gateway, where the unsubbed OP is automatically subscribed to the companion forum thread and will receive email updates whenever someone replies (via email or the forum)... -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/22/2010 11:25 AM, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2010-10-22 11:38 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote: OK, then I'm back to my initial position -- since informative responses can easily come deeper in the thread, this technique (even if it were supported by the list manager capabilities) would lead to such responses failing to reach the OP without additional action by the responder. However, if the OP is given information about use of nabble, say (either by the moderator supplying general instructions, or a list member supplying a specific link to the thread), then the OP has access to *all* responses and no cc'ing would ever be required. This possibility is supported even with no changes made through the list manager. Hmmm.. Ok, another idea... Just send an auto-reply to the unsubbed OP when they post anything, with a direct link to the Nabble thread, and inform the user that they will need to get their answers from there - although they'd have to actually visit the link to know if there were any more answers... OK, but if this is sent before (or as part of) moderator processing, the message won't yet have made it to nabble, so there isn't a direct thread link available. I doubt autoprocessing could come up with the nabble thread link in any case, sounds pretty tricky. What I think would have to happen for LibO is for the moderator to supply general information about how the user can find his thread on nabble and subscribe to it (assuming nabble has that capability, I don't know it well enough to say). There are some related possibilities, I'm trying to get my act together to set up a wiki page for discussion. Anyway, it looks like I'm fighting a losing battle... and honestly, if the moderators don't mind all of the work, who am I to complain? I can easily just circular file the noise the situation generates... I think the best way to resolve this completely would be a Forum-Mailist gateway, where the unsubbed OP is automatically subscribed to the companion forum thread and will receive email updates whenever someone replies (via email or the forum)... Interesting. So any unsubscribed user's post to the list would automatically be replicated on a forum (presumably the users.services.openoffice.org Beginners forum for OOo, and LibreOfficeForum.org Beginners with LibreOffice forum for LibO) and all subsequent posts to the thread, through either mechanism, would also be replicated on the other? Sounds really good, if it could be implemented. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
Le 2010-10-21 01:26, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi, Charles Marcus wrote on 2010-10-20 14.18: (including lists) for the long run... Anyway, at a minimum, I would dearly love to see simple list specific pages for subscribing/unsubscribing. Mailman generates these out of the box, so its not like this should be a lot of work - unless mlmmj doesn't provide such pages? If not, then I think it would be worth it to make the move to mailman just for that. mlmmj doesn't provide these pages, that's correct. We need to find another way of creating it. Switching to Mailman is not possible for the reasons stated earlier, them being 1. missing virtual domain support (no same list name at multiple domains) 2. no easy moderation via e-mail. Florian I know a few other lists that allow subscription via a web page and that also allow one to be registered but with web-only access. That would allow the occasional poster to subscribe and see answers on the web without getting swamped by e-mail for ever and ever... -- Michel Gagnon Montréal (Québec, Canada) -- http://mgagnon.net -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 2010-10-20 8:55 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: In that regard, the modification of the Reply-To is, I think, more likely to give a false sense of security than to fix the problem of people not getting responses they would benefit from. I totally disagree. The only time this wouldn't work is if someone is using a mail client taht doesn't respect the Reply-To header. As has been shown, virtually all of the most popular mail clients in fact do respect it, so the times that it didn't work would be the corner cases, not the norm. However, since Florian has apparently investigated this and discovered that the current list software cannot do this, it is a moot point... :( -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/21/2010 9:52 AM, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2010-10-20 8:55 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: In that regard, the modification of the Reply-To is, I think, more likely to give a false sense of security than to fix the problem of people not getting responses they would benefit from. I totally disagree. The only time this wouldn't work is if someone is using a mail client taht doesn't respect the Reply-To header. As has been shown, virtually all of the most popular mail clients in fact do respect it, so the times that it didn't work would be the corner cases, not the norm. However, since Florian has apparently investigated this and discovered that the current list software cannot do this, it is a moot point... :( I'd just like to make sure I'm clear on this, OK? If I get a message with a Reply-To header, and respond to it using Reply, not only does the response go to those in the Reply-To header, but that header is itself duplicated in my response? And the Reply-To header is also carried through if I use Reply All? That header inheritance is the part I didn't think was necessarily happening. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/21/2010 12:02 AM, Drew Jensen wrote: If we had a similar page for OOo, it would make an enormous difference there, as well. Why not - http://oucv.org/oooext.html I did not setup that nabble archive, and can't change settings - if you back up there to the openoffice level you are actually looking at a flat view of the users ML at oo.o - the others are available also, but I did not find a decent forum/sub-forum view. actually - with the sub-forum view... http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/OpenOffice-f2721033.subapps.html Yes, I found that once -- but I wasn't sure if those magic numbers for the OOo lists were consistent over time. But if they are, then it would be nice to have a FAQ about using this mechanism that could be linked to in an initial communication with an unsubscribed OP. I've hesitated to use nabble in a standard response because there seems to be no official sanction of this mechanism on the OOo website. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/20/2010 11:50 PM, Drew Jensen wrote: On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 19:55 -0500, Barbara Duprey wrote: Howdy Barbara I don't have anything against forums (though I hope we can avoid having two top-level ones, as for OOo, and careful planning is needed in determining the subforums). The main difference, which is a positive for some and a negative for others, A breif look at some numbers - and ideas for how we offer mail lists/forums maybe. is that mailing lists are passive (people get mail when No, they must run some type of reader - this can include a notification agent in their OS or Browser. OK, not *totally* passive!:-) But I don't have to go to each website with forums of interest, log in, and navigate to each forum, and each thread in that forum, to see what's new. I get a nice presentation from my mail client (which I keep up basically all the time) showing all the new messages. In my case, I have all the OOo and LibO traffic directed to a common mailbox, so it's all there without my having to seek it out. I also have different mailboxes for each other list or family of lists I follow. Maybe I'm missing something about how I could use forums as easily? If not, for me the mailing lists require much less explicit activity on my part. it's posted) and forums/newsgroups require action to see messages. Every web forum I know of send notification email to the original poster whenever a response is posted to a thread they created. Well now, that's *very* interesting! I clearly haven't used forums in too long, I've never seen this. It still doesn't help with a forum analog of this conversation, though, since I didn't originate this thread. With that in mind there is no real difference between traditional mail lists and web forums for the majority of end user support questions. The vast number of these people come ask a question or two, they desire a timely reply and if the are helped they may not come to ask another question in a long time, if ever again. The number of new joins and the number of new topics being in synch is a result of this. Here is the en only forums status as of a few minutes ago: http://oucv.org/images/usooo-frm-daily.png If you analyze the mailing list archives at OO.o for number of posts to email addresses this is a huge distribution difference. If you do the same analyses on the 10 years of OooForum posts and the last 5 years of the fr forum at u.s.oo.o and the 3 years for the remaining user.services forums the numbers break down quite nearly identical to the mailing lists in distribution. In the last 3 years the user.services forum has had 35,000 plus people that signed up, asked their 2.x questions and most I think got a reasonable answer in a reasonable amount of time. http://oucv.org/images/usooo-frm-totals.png You mentioned two top level forums, actually that is two English top level. So for overall activity you need to, almost, double those figures - there is a percentage of people that cross post questions, but it is not particularly high, or at least was not last time I took the time to try an count it (about 2 years ago..and it was minimal 15% of topics as best I could gather) So take that number, 35,000 and make it ~60,000 people that would of subscribed / and want to very quickly un-subscribe / from the ML, 20,000 more a year. Wow! I knew I didn't want to force ML subscription for (most likely) short-term users, but these figures are fascinating. I do, myself, which may be why I see the balance between the two mechanisms differently than you. In that regard, the modification of the Reply-To is, Yes I agree the current footer on the ML should be changed IMO But the key is, even if people have to subscribe, don't make it so they are required to un-subscribe, necessarily. I think, more likely to give a false sense of security than to fix the problem of people not getting responses they would benefit from. However, there's an approach I hope we can agree on, which is having the moderator send an unsubscribed OP a message that, among other things, tells them how to use a page like the one Drew has developed (http://oucv.org/tdf.html) to follow their threads on nabble without having to subscribe. NOTE to self: need wiki page for how to work with Nabble ;-/ or anyone wanting to help.. Hooray! I'm definitely willing to help. If we had a similar page for OOo, it would make an enormous difference there, as well. Why not - http://oucv.org/oooext.html I did not setup that nabble archive, and can't change settings - if you back up there to the openoffice level you are actually looking at a flat view of the users ML at oo.o - the others are available also, but I did not find a decent forum/sub-forum view. I also think there are possibilities in creating sublists in parallel with the subforums; the main thing I'm concerned about here is getting into lots of redirection from the beginning list/forum to the
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 17:09 -0500, Barbara Duprey wrote: On 10/20/2010 11:50 PM, Drew Jensen wrote: Every web forum I know of send notification email to the original poster whenever a response is posted to a thread they created. Well now, that's *very* interesting! I clearly haven't used forums in too long, I've never seen this. It still doesn't help with a forum analog of this conversation, though, since I didn't originate this thread. Many forums, and wiki pages, allow you to tick a box to watch them, even if you didn't originate them, and then you'll get a notification of each response. I agree, though, that it's a nuisance to not have the response itself show up in one's email, but only the notification. I'm trying to learn about wikis so I can host and manage one on this subject, but I'd gladly defer to somebody else who can put one up on the TDF site where it really belongs. Any takers? It's a wiki - be fearless..you can't really break it - well, not really Are you saying there's already a wiki page established that we could use to collect all these thoughts? Or that I could create a page off the TDF wiki (assuming I would be able to get appropriate authorization) and run with it? In either case, wonderful -- what's the next step? To edit a wiki page or add a page to the wiki, all you need is to register. No special permissions needed. Go to any wiki page and look in the upper right-hand corner for Login/Register. You'll get a standard confirmation email, which you have to respond to. --Jean -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com wrote in message news:4cc0ba20.70...@onr.com... On 10/20/2010 11:50 PM, Drew Jensen wrote: snip Every web forum I know of send notification email to the original poster whenever a response is posted to a thread they created. Well now, that's *very* interesting! I clearly haven't used forums in too long, I've never seen this. It still doesn't help with a forum analog of this conversation, though, since I didn't originate this thread. With that in mind there is no real difference between traditional mail lists and web forums for the majority of end user support questions. snip In the web forums I've used it has *not* been the default. In other words I've had to remember to tick the box to get automatic mail notifications. But that's a once-only thing as far as *my* questions are concerned; you do it when you register. I don't *know* but I suppose it could be set as the default behaviour when the forum is initially established. In a different thread I suggested that registering LibreOffice automatically registers you for the Forum and, in addition, a Support button on LibO's toolbar takes the registered user directly to that forum with the automatically send me e-mail answers option pre-set. If the user didn't register LibO then that Support button simply displays text about registering and getting support. -- Harold Fuchs London, England -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/21/2010 6:28 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: Many forums, and wiki pages, allow you to tick a box to watch them, even if you didn't originate them, and then you'll get a notification of each response. I agree, though, that it's a nuisance to not have the response itself show up in one's email, but only the notification. Some also contain the posted content - for example, the Wilders Security/ESET (NOD32) forums do this... http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15 -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/21/2010 5:18 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: I'd just like to make sure I'm clear on this, OK? If I get a message with a Reply-To header, and respond to it using Reply, not only does the response go to those in the Reply-To header, Yes it goes to everyone in the Reply-To header... but that header is itself duplicated in my response? Egads, no! Why would you think that? It goes to the list and to the OP with whatever you have set for your Reply-To for this account (usually blank)... And the Reply-To header is also carried through if I use Reply All? That header inheritance is the part I didn't think was necessarily happening. I'd have to experiment with how it behaves with a Reply-To when Reply All is clicked... I imagine some clients may behave differently... I didn't say it would be perfect, but at least any responses to the OP's initial question would go to both the list and the OP (if the Reply-To is set properly. And yes, you can set this manually if you like... -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
Hi, Charles Marcus wrote on 2010-10-19 22.37: Correct, hence my suggestion to simply tweak the list server software to add a custom Reply-To header (both list*and* unsubbed OP) for posts from unsubbed posters. I have another idea... Instead of individual list subscriptions, why not create a more centralized 'user account' based support system, that gives posting privileges to*all* email lists once you have registered. This system would have a simple web interface where people can control what lists they get mail from (checkboxes for each list)? honestly, this sounds like a lot of work, and I doubt it is worth the efforts. We have mailing lists, soon will have a forum, and can already use Nabble for mailing lists. To me, this sounds like a good option for anyone seeking support? Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 2010-10-20 6:09 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Charles Marcus wrote on 2010-10-19 22.37: Correct, hence my suggestion to simply tweak the list server software to add a custom Reply-To header (both list*and* unsubbed OP) for posts from unsubbed posters. I have another idea... Instead of individual list subscriptions, why not create a more centralized 'user account' based support system, that gives posting privileges to*all* email lists once you have registered. This system would have a simple web interface where people can control what lists they get mail from (checkboxes for each list)? honestly, this sounds like a lot of work, and I doubt it is worth the efforts. We have mailing lists, soon will have a forum, and can already use Nabble for mailing lists. To me, this sounds like a good option for anyone seeking support? Well, being that ianap, I don't really know how much work it would be - while I'm not suggesting it would be 'trivial' at all, it just seems to me like not so much for someone well versed in the necessary tools - 'seems' being the operative word there... ;) Like I said, it was just an idea, the thought being it is better to spend a bit more 'up-front', building an easy to use and comprehensive support 'System', to reduce the overhead of managing the support process (including lists) for the long run... Anyway, at a minimum, I would dearly love to see simple list specific pages for subscribing/unsubscribing. Mailman generates these out of the box, so its not like this should be a lot of work - unless mlmmj doesn't provide such pages? If not, then I think it would be worth it to make the move to mailman just for that. -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/19/2010 1:16 AM, James Wilde wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 00:27 , Barbara Duprey wrote: Does this mean you're a (the?) moderator for this list? Not having that Delivered-To header definitely does complicate things! I'm amazed that anybody is posting here unsubscribed at this point, I'd expect the early users here to have more awareness of the value of subscribing. Don't know what the other mods have for experience of this list, but my own is that most of the unsubscribed posters are subscribed under another name and just happen to send a message from one of their unsubscribed email addresses. OK, now it makes more sense! Even if the Reply=To were modified, wouldn't the inclusion of the OP on the messages fall apart as soon as somebody didn't use Reply All? I, for one, would have to be seriously retrained! I still feel that the most profitable approach is referring the OP to an archive with Reply capability, but this is a subject for more discussion elsewhere. Until/unless we get a wiki up, feel free to use my e-mail; I'll try to include everybody who lets me know they're interested. Another good reason to prioritise down the mailing list in favour of a forum. //James I don't have anything against forums (though I hope we can avoid having two top-level ones, as for OOo, and careful planning is needed in determining the subforums). The main difference, which is a positive for some and a negative for others, is that mailing lists are passive (people get mail when it's posted) and forums/newsgroups require action to see messages. I've seen another of your posts where you mentioned your positive experience with forums and non-techie users (where you gave me way too much credit as a user helper!), and that's great. I also have no difficulty with describing both mechanisms at the user's first point of contact, so they can choose the style that best fits them. I just want to maintain good support of mailing lists for those who like them better. I do, myself, which may be why I see the balance between the two mechanisms differently than you. In that regard, the modification of the Reply-To is, I think, more likely to give a false sense of security than to fix the problem of people not getting responses they would benefit from. However, there's an approach I hope we can agree on, which is having the moderator send an unsubscribed OP a message that, among other things, tells them how to use a page like the one Drew has developed (http://oucv.org/tdf.html) to follow their threads on nabble without having to subscribe. That will give the users a full range of choices for how they want to interact, and they won't miss the responses. (If they do, it's not our fault!) The LibO lists put more on the moderator, because nobody else knows whether the OP is subscribed -- but that's a good thing for eliminating all the meta-discussions that derive from the OOo Delivered-To technique, I wouldn't want to see it changed. (I'm willing to be a moderator myself, BTW.) If we had a similar page for OOo, it would make an enormous difference there, as well. I also think there are possibilities in creating sublists in parallel with the subforums; the main thing I'm concerned about here is getting into lots of redirection from the beginning list/forum to the subs, unless it's really necessary because the question drives too deep for appropriate handling at a generalist's level. (Sort of like the Level 1/ Level 2/ Level 3 support structure used by most help desks I've known about.) Developing the kind of structure and the related message I'm talking about here, and that has been recommended by others, will take significant collaboration. I'm trying to learn about wikis so I can host and manage one on this subject, but I'd gladly defer to somebody else who can put one up on the TDF site where it really belongs. Any takers? -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 19:55 -0500, Barbara Duprey wrote: Howdy Barbara I don't have anything against forums (though I hope we can avoid having two top-level ones, as for OOo, and careful planning is needed in determining the subforums). The main difference, which is a positive for some and a negative for others, A breif look at some numbers - and ideas for how we offer mail lists/forums maybe. is that mailing lists are passive (people get mail when No, they must run some type of reader - this can include a notification agent in their OS or Browser. it's posted) and forums/newsgroups require action to see messages. Every web forum I know of send notification email to the original poster whenever a response is posted to a thread they created. With that in mind there is no real difference between traditional mail lists and web forums for the majority of end user support questions. The vast number of these people come ask a question or two, they desire a timely reply and if the are helped they may not come to ask another question in a long time, if ever again. The number of new joins and the number of new topics being in synch is a result of this. Here is the en only forums status as of a few minutes ago: http://oucv.org/images/usooo-frm-daily.png If you analyze the mailing list archives at OO.o for number of posts to email addresses this is a huge distribution difference. If you do the same analyses on the 10 years of OooForum posts and the last 5 years of the fr forum at u.s.oo.o and the 3 years for the remaining user.services forums the numbers break down quite nearly identical to the mailing lists in distribution. In the last 3 years the user.services forum has had 35,000 plus people that signed up, asked their 2.x questions and most I think got a reasonable answer in a reasonable amount of time. http://oucv.org/images/usooo-frm-totals.png You mentioned two top level forums, actually that is two English top level. So for overall activity you need to, almost, double those figures - there is a percentage of people that cross post questions, but it is not particularly high, or at least was not last time I took the time to try an count it (about 2 years ago..and it was minimal 15% of topics as best I could gather) So take that number, 35,000 and make it ~60,000 people that would of subscribed / and want to very quickly un-subscribe / from the ML, 20,000 more a year. I do, myself, which may be why I see the balance between the two mechanisms differently than you. In that regard, the modification of the Reply-To is, Yes I agree the current footer on the ML should be changed IMO But the key is, even if people have to subscribe, don't make it so they are required to un-subscribe, necessarily. I think, more likely to give a false sense of security than to fix the problem of people not getting responses they would benefit from. However, there's an approach I hope we can agree on, which is having the moderator send an unsubscribed OP a message that, among other things, tells them how to use a page like the one Drew has developed (http://oucv.org/tdf.html) to follow their threads on nabble without having to subscribe. NOTE to self: need wiki page for how to work with Nabble ;-/ or anyone wanting to help.. If we had a similar page for OOo, it would make an enormous difference there, as well. Why not - http://oucv.org/oooext.html I did not setup that nabble archive, and can't change settings - if you back up there to the openoffice level you are actually looking at a flat view of the users ML at oo.o - the others are available also, but I did not find a decent forum/sub-forum view. I also think there are possibilities in creating sublists in parallel with the subforums; the main thing I'm concerned about here is getting into lots of redirection from the beginning list/forum to the subs, unless it's really necessary because the question drives too deep for appropriate handling at a generalist's level. (Sort of like the Level 1/ Level 2/ Level 3 support structure used by most help desks I've known about.) Ok - I agree that there is need for both aggregate and segregated views to topics - I'd say the segregated produces more results for support situations - look back at the numbers for daily activity. 60 topic posts a day - simple indicator to me anyway, number per day of those for Math, Draw and Base - in the aggregated ML Math and Draw specific questions are reasonably infrequent, Base perhaps more so, but Base is really the only one with a functioning segregated ML for user support - in the forums there would be avg 1 for Math, 4 for Draw and 10 for Base. (good estimate I think but didn't run actual numbers lately) That said, I'm good with the idea of an aggregate user (All modules and extensions in one place) and segregated web forums - which I think is what you are suggesting, yes? Developing the
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
If we had a similar page for OOo, it would make an enormous difference there, as well. Why not - http://oucv.org/oooext.html I did not setup that nabble archive, and can't change settings - if you back up there to the openoffice level you are actually looking at a flat view of the users ML at oo.o - the others are available also, but I did not find a decent forum/sub-forum view. actually - with the sub-forum view... http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/OpenOffice-f2721033.subapps.html //drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
Hi, Charles Marcus wrote on 2010-10-20 14.18: (including lists) for the long run... Anyway, at a minimum, I would dearly love to see simple list specific pages for subscribing/unsubscribing. Mailman generates these out of the box, so its not like this should be a lot of work - unless mlmmj doesn't provide such pages? If not, then I think it would be worth it to make the move to mailman just for that. mlmmj doesn't provide these pages, that's correct. We need to find another way of creating it. Switching to Mailman is not possible for the reasons stated earlier, them being 1. missing virtual domain support (no same list name at multiple domains) 2. no easy moderation via e-mail. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 2010-10-18 6:27 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Even if the Reply=To were modified, wouldn't the inclusion of the OP on the messages fall apart as soon as somebody didn't use Reply All? The purpose of Reply-To header is to manage how replies are handled. Reply All is not necessary if the Reply-To header is correct and you use a standards compliant mail client that doesn't ignore it. -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 2010-10-19 9:00 AM, James Wilde wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 13:50 , Charles Marcus wrote: On 2010-10-18 6:27 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Even if the Reply=To were modified, wouldn't the inclusion of the OP on the messages fall apart as soon as somebody didn't use Reply All? The purpose of Reply-To header is to manage how replies are handled. Reply All is not necessary if the Reply-To header is correct and you use a standards compliant mail client that doesn't ignore it. Unfortunately, Charles, about 99.3% of the general public, or, say, 87.2% of the people on this list don't have such a mail client. At the moment I'm using Mac Mail, which pulls the sender's name if I press Reply, and everybody's name if I press Reply All. As far as I remember Outlook has the same characteristics. I can't remember what T-Bird did on Linux and I haven't used pine in a hundred years. I think this is probably because Reply To is not set in most clients, and is filled in on sending from the Sender field. Actually, this is more likely a problem with the current list server MUNGING the Reply-To headers, qand/or incorrect testing methodology (no offense). When the Reply-to is not set, then the right thing to do is to reply to the 'From' header, and if it isn't set, to the envelope sender. Thunderbird has honored correctly set Reply-To headers for as long as I can remember, and I'd be very surprised if you are actually right - or even remotely close - about your estimated numbers. -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
Hi all, Bernhard Dippold wrote (19-10-10 00:23) Hi Barbara, all, [...] It's hard to read all the mails and to reply to the most important only (in my eyes). I will probably not be able to contribute much to this thread (or to the wiki) during the next few weeks - but I promise to stay on reading it... Sorry :-( No need to apologize :-) As far as I could follow the discussion, I think a 'on-fits-all' solution does not exist. So a combination of a. some tweaking of the mail list server b some improving explanation (mail 'Commands available for .. and website) c. moderators that try to help people as far as possible/needed. Does that sound logic? If not: what is the 'on-fits-all' solution? If yes, maybe posters in this thread with special knowledge/experience on a, b, or c, could be so kind to add practical actions to those items? Regards, Cor -- - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - ideas/remarks for the community council? See http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/19/2010 06:00 AM, James Wilde wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 13:50 , Charles Marcus wrote: On 2010-10-18 6:27 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Even if the Reply=To were modified, wouldn't the inclusion of the OP on the messages fall apart as soon as somebody didn't use Reply All? The purpose of Reply-To header is to manage how replies are handled. Reply All is not necessary if the Reply-To header is correct and you use a standards compliant mail client that doesn't ignore it. Unfortunately, Charles, about 99.3% of the general public, or, say, 87.2% of the people on this list don't have such a mail client. At the moment I'm using Mac Mail, which pulls the sender's name if I press Reply, and everybody's name if I press Reply All. As far as I remember Outlook has the same characteristics. I can't remember what T-Bird did on Linux and I haven't used pine in a hundred years. Where did you get these numbers? Respecting the Reply-To header is a pretty basic feature. Yes, thunderbird, gmail, pine, etc. respects it. Pine actually asks whether you want to use the Reply-To or From address. I think this is probably because Reply To is not set in most clients, and is filled in on sending from the Sender field. Unless the reply should be addressed to someone other than the sender, the Reply-To shouldn't be set. Mailing list servers often add a Reply-To header, so that discussion is directed to the list. Jon -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
Hi, Jon Hamkins wrote on 2010-10-19 18.43: Unless the reply should be addressed to someone other than the sender, the Reply-To shouldn't be set. Mailing list servers often add a Reply-To header, so that discussion is directed to the list. the reply-to header is set on purpose. When replying to a list posting, the reply should go to the list. I think that's pretty normal behaviour, and IMHO, it was also so at the OOo infrastructure. Where exactly is the problem? Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 2010/10/19 7:00 AM James Wilde wrote: At the moment I'm using Mac Mail, which pulls the sender's name if I press Reply, and everybody's name if I press Reply All. As far as I remember Outlook has the same characteristics. I can't remember what T-Bird did on Linux and I haven't used pine in a hundred years. I think this is probably because Reply To is not set in most clients, and is filled in on sending from the Sender field. Mac Mail respects the Reply-To header as does Thunderbird. -- - Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/19/2010 09:51 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Jon Hamkins wrote on 2010-10-19 18.43: Unless the reply should be addressed to someone other than the sender, the Reply-To shouldn't be set. Mailing list servers often add a Reply-To header, so that discussion is directed to the list. the reply-to header is set on purpose. When replying to a list posting, the reply should go to the list. I think that's pretty normal behaviour, and IMHO, it was also so at the OOo infrastructure. Where exactly is the problem? As far as I'm concerned, there is no problem. This is what most mailing lists do, and it's exactly the behavior I want. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Jon -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On Oct 16, 2010, at 00:50 , Barbara Duprey wrote: ... It is often not clear whether or not the OP is subscribed -- many can't/won't look at the full headers or filter on them, and sometimes they join the discussion later, when the header is not available. For somebody who really has an interest in the care and feeding of currently unsubscribed users, so they can eventually be brought into the community, or at least be happy with the software, this means that the OP may well be dissatisfied. They don't get answers, and assume we don't care. An additional complication here is that, as far as I have been able to see by going through the headers of messages I have approved, there is no easy way to see that these headers have been moderated as there is on the OOo list. Almost the only thing I see is that my email address, albeit a little garbled, is included with a reference to the envelope (I don't remember the exact wording, and don't have an example in front of me, so I can't be more specific.) there is no easy filter to apply. Presumably the result of us using a different list mailer from the OOo one. From this point of view it would be better if the unsubscribed OP's address were added to the reply-to line, but I can't see that the moderator can do this, since (s)he merely clicks on a link. Plus I, at least, have started sending a mail to the OP of messages I moderate, suggesting that they subscribe. I assume other mods do this, too. //James -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On Oct 17, 2010, at 19:54 , Charles Marcus wrote: ... I do know that the users/discuss lists volume is way too heavy for an 'average user' to get any benefit from. For example, since checking my email last on Friday evening, there have been 150+ new messages to this list... this would simply terrify anyone who subbed for a simple answer to a simple question. I agree. It terrifies me! OTOH people looking for a simple answer to a simple question shouldn't be in discuss but in users. At the moment users gets about 5 messages a day - more later, of course - but over on OOo, one gets a heavy day with maybe 30 messages and some days with just a couple. I don't think OOo users list is too heavy for a normal user. However, I like the idea of separate lists for separate parts, writer, calc, etc. And finally, are we going over to the wiki as (I think) Jean suggested? //James -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/18/2010 1:24 AM, James Wilde wrote: On Oct 17, 2010, at 19:54 , Charles Marcus wrote: ... I do know that the users/discuss lists volume is way too heavy for an 'average user' to get any benefit from. For example, since checking my email last on Friday evening, there have been 150+ new messages to this list... this would simply terrify anyone who subbed for a simple answer to a simple question. I agree. It terrifies me! OTOH people looking for a simple answer to a simple question shouldn't be in discuss but in users. At the moment users gets about 5 messages a day - more later, of course - but over on OOo, one gets a heavy day with maybe 30 messages and some days with just a couple. I don't think OOo users list is too heavy for a normal user. That depends partly on how often they look at and clear their mail. We've certainly gotten plenty of messages on the users list about getting overloaded with traffic. Are these normal users? I'm not sure there really is such a critter! However, I like the idea of separate lists for separate parts, writer, calc, etc. Probably worth looking into, but see my earlier response. And finally, are we going over to the wiki as (I think) Jean suggested? Yes, Jean suggested it and I think it's a great idea -- but she's too swamped to do it, so I've embarked on an exercise to learn about wiki development and management. Not the simplest of subjects, so it will take me a while -- unless somebody else who is following this has the necessary skill and time? //James -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
Hi Barbara, all, Barbara Duprey schrieb: On 10/15/2010 7:11 PM, Bernhard Dippold wrote: [...] I'd like to establish a common agreement on how to deal with moderated mails, so these off-topic mails will be not necessary any more. That would be nice, and maybe we can make it work -- but this list may not be the best place to do it. How about if we (and whoever else is especially interested in all this) start communicating off list and try to generate a strawman for the rest of the group to discuss in specific, rather than generic, terms? I'm really interested in this topic, but I'm running totally out of time. It's hard to read all the mails and to reply to the most important only (in my eyes). I will probably not be able to contribute much to this thread (or to the wiki) during the next few weeks - but I promise to stay on reading it... Sorry :-( Bernhard -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/18/2010 1:16 AM, James Wilde wrote: On Oct 16, 2010, at 00:50 , Barbara Duprey wrote: ... It is often not clear whether or not the OP is subscribed -- many can't/won't look at the full headers or filter on them, and sometimes they join the discussion later, when the header is not available. For somebody who really has an interest in the care and feeding of currently unsubscribed users, so they can eventually be brought into the community, or at least be happy with the software, this means that the OP may well be dissatisfied. They don't get answers, and assume we don't care. An additional complication here is that, as far as I have been able to see by going through the headers of messages I have approved, there is no easy way to see that these headers have been moderated as there is on the OOo list. Almost the only thing I see is that my email address, albeit a little garbled, is included with a reference to the envelope (I don't remember the exact wording, and don't have an example in front of me, so I can't be more specific.) there is no easy filter to apply. Presumably the result of us using a different list mailer from the OOo one. Does this mean you're a (the?) moderator for this list? Not having that Delivered-To header definitely does complicate things! I'm amazed that anybody is posting here unsubscribed at this point, I'd expect the early users here to have more awareness of the value of subscribing. From this point of view it would be better if the unsubscribed OP's address were added to the reply-to line, but I can't see that the moderator can do this, since (s)he merely clicks on a link. Plus I, at least, have started sending a mail to the OP of messages I moderate, suggesting that they subscribe. I assume other mods do this, too. Even if the Reply=To were modified, wouldn't the inclusion of the OP on the messages fall apart as soon as somebody didn't use Reply All? I, for one, would have to be seriously retrained! I still feel that the most profitable approach is referring the OP to an archive with Reply capability, but this is a subject for more discussion elsewhere. Until/unless we get a wiki up, feel free to use my e-mail; I'll try to include everybody who lets me know they're interested. //James -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 2010-10-16 5:00 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: No, because so often they get overwhelmed by the list volume. Mailman has the concept of 'umbrella' lists... Maybe we could create 'micro' lists - say, one for Writer, one for Calc, one for Impress, etc - then make the 'discuss' and 'users' lists parent lists (or is it vice versa? - I don't use them so not sure of the relationships)... The way it would work is, if someone only has a quick questions about Writer, they ask there. People on the Writer list only see questions/answers about Writer, and people on the discuss/users lists see questions about all of them. When someone subscribes, they could then simply check boxes next to the lists/topics they are interested in, and wouldn't need to know they are actually subscribing to separate lists. I do know that the users/discuss lists volume is way too heavy for an 'average user' to get any benefit from. For example, since checking my email last on Friday evening, there have been 150+ new messages to this list... this would simply terrify anyone who subbed for a simple answer to a simple question. -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
On 10/15/2010 7:11 PM, Bernhard Dippold wrote: Hi Barbara, Barbara Duprey schrieb: [...] [Bernhard, I'm not sure you actually saw my post == it's all snipped here. But I think it's pertinent to some of your points.] I did - but as I only replied to the main point (in my eyes), I removed the other parts to increase readability. You seem to want to make it easier for unsubscribed users to get their questions replied - I want to show them more: Our community. Yes, but if they don't get an answer for their initial question they'll never want to know about the community. I'm sure you're not the only one to use the list this way, but I'm pretty sure that investigation would show two main motivations: getting answers to questions, and learning about the capabilities and possible difficulties of the software (and that kind of user would almost certainly subscribe). Participation would generally come later, when people are more familiar with the software and the community. I started with the first motivation, but discovered the positive attitude on the list and sticked there - being able to reply to questions by others. I'd rather propose to state clearly on the website the different ways for getting user support: - People hesitant to subscribe to the mailing list should ask their questions on the forum. In my experience, people are much less hesitant to subscribe to a mailing list than to learn about forum use (many more people use e-mail than forums) and identify the proper forum to use for their question. So you ask them to subscribe? No, because so often they get overwhelmed by the list volume. I'm just saying that I don't think the forum is an answer for those who are hesitant to subscribe. I think your first point here addresses an essentially null set of people. All of OOo (or LibO) is just it! Don't understand what you are referring to... There are so many individual forums that I think it would overwhelm many of these people. They really have no idea about how OOo is constructed or what criteria to use in selecting a forum -- it's just one big black box to them. And their interest in being trained for forum use is likely to be very low. - If users want to ask their question on the mailing list, they should subscribe IMHO and find out how our community works. The main issue here is the volume of mail on the most likely lists (users and discuss). Many of these folks are not especially (or even somewhat!) tech savvy; they just want to get an answer to a question, not wade through lots of things of no interest to them. So there are different interests by the user and the community. While the user only wants to get his question replied, the community wants to involve new members. I don't think this is either/or -- first ensure that they can get their answers without any more fuss than necessary, then ensure that they have enough information to get involved with the community if they so choose. In this case it is important to tell them about the number of mails they will be sent if they subscribe. Yes indeed! If this is too much in their eyes, they should look at the archives / Gmane / Nabbles / www.mail-archive.com. But I think they will be able to delete 20 in their eyes unnecessary mails if they get their reply for free and in a very short timeframe. I think we should probably continue off-list and discuss some likely scenarios. I doubt that the timeframe is very short, or that the number of unwanted messages is so low. I'll bet many don't know how to set up filters so all the list mail stays separate from their regular mail, and they quite likely don't even understand threading. When they've subscribed, and gotten swamped and/or irritated, we get unsubscribe me requests/demands. With a proper information mail to unsubscribed posters they will know how to unsubscribe. For those who subscribe, the welcome message gives them that info as is -- but there are clearly ways that people get on the list without going through the e-mail/confirm/welcome process. What they are, I wish I knew! I've asked several of these people but have never gotten a response. In any case, I'm afraid that many people (and especially non-techies) ignore any messages of significant length after a cursory glance, and are then likely to throw the message away. Whether unsubscribe me messages come from people who initially subscribed normally or not, we see lots of them. The more naive users are led into subscribing, the more frequent this problem will become (IMHO). The mail from the moderators to the unsubscribed posters is the most important one - it's the invitation to join our community. This mail will have to provide all necessary information on how to subscribe and unsubscribe as well as a short statement who we are. ... and what archives are available, and how to use them, and I think the initial message would have to be
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
I agree with what Barbara Duprey wrote in response to Bernhard, in a long note that I'm not quoting here. We really need some way of supporting ordinary users, especially the vast majority who just want their questions answered and/or who don't have the time or interest to join our community. Barbara wrote, How about if we (and whoever else is especially interested in all this) start communicating off list ... How about setting up a page on the wiki as well, where we can collect our thoughts, examples, suggestions, arguments? Either way, count me in. --Jean -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
Hi Barbara, Barbara Duprey schrieb: [...] [Bernhard, I'm not sure you actually saw my post == it's all snipped here. But I think it's pertinent to some of your points.] I did - but as I only replied to the main point (in my eyes), I removed the other parts to increase readability. You seem to want to make it easier for unsubscribed users to get their questions replied - I want to show them more: Our community. I'm sure you're not the only one to use the list this way, but I'm pretty sure that investigation would show two main motivations: getting answers to questions, and learning about the capabilities and possible difficulties of the software (and that kind of user would almost certainly subscribe). Participation would generally come later, when people are more familiar with the software and the community. I started with the first motivation, but discovered the positive attitude on the list and sticked there - being able to reply to questions by others. I'd rather propose to state clearly on the website the different ways for getting user support: - People hesitant to subscribe to the mailing list should ask their questions on the forum. In my experience, people are much less hesitant to subscribe to a mailing list than to learn about forum use (many more people use e-mail than forums) and identify the proper forum to use for their question. So you ask them to subscribe? All of OOo (or LibO) is just it! Don't understand what you are referring to... - If users want to ask their question on the mailing list, they should subscribe IMHO and find out how our community works. The main issue here is the volume of mail on the most likely lists (users and discuss). Many of these folks are not especially (or even somewhat!) tech savvy; they just want to get an answer to a question, not wade through lots of things of no interest to them. So there are different interests by the user and the community. While the user only wants to get his question replied, the community wants to involve new members. In this case it is important to tell them about the number of mails they will be sent if they subscribe. If this is too much in their eyes, they should look at the archives / Gmane / Nabbles / www.mail-archive.com. But I think they will be able to delete 20 in their eyes unnecessary mails if they get their reply for free and in a very short timeframe. I'll bet many don't know how to set up filters so all the list mail stays separate from their regular mail, and they quite likely don't even understand threading. When they've subscribed, and gotten swamped and/or irritated, we get unsubscribe me requests/demands. With a proper information mail to unsubscribed posters they will know how to unsubscribe. The mail from the moderators to the unsubscribed posters is the most important one - it's the invitation to join our community. This mail will have to provide all necessary information on how to subscribe and unsubscribe as well as a short statement who we are. About unsubscribe requests: I'm quite sure that most of the people didn't know enough about the mailing list, when they subscribed: This should be addressed as well on the website (near to the subscribe links) as in the mail the moderators send. With the information by the moderators they will have the chance to get all the replies from the archive or subscribe and perhaps become a community member. The main problem I see with directing them to the archive is that in a large number of cases, they're asked to supply additional information so we can help, and the archive is not set up for that (at least, the OOo one isn't). I see the point - threading will only be able for replies via Nabbles and Gmane. ... or if they have subscribed ;-) I don't want the OP is not subscribed. Please CC him mails on this mailing list and the discussions about the necessity for them. I agree this is not good -- but at the moment no really satisfactory alternative has been developed. That's why these discussions keep occurring. I'd like to establish a common agreement on how to deal with moderated mails, so these off-topic mails will be not necessary any more. Who ever wants to CC him can do so, but without bothering others. It is often not clear whether or not the OP is subscribed -- many can't/won't look at the full headers or filter on them, and sometimes they join the discussion later, when the header is not available. For somebody who really has an interest in the care and feeding of currently unsubscribed users, so they can eventually be brought into the community, or at least be happy with the software, this means that the OP may well be dissatisfied. They don't get answers, and assume we don't care. This has to be addressed by the moderators of the list. They are the ones knowing that the poster is not subscribed - and they should tell him how to follow the thread (and in my eyes the
