Harold Fuchs wrote:
Barbara Duprey wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Barbara Duprey wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
Barbara Duprey wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
2009/11/1 Barbara Duprey <[email protected]>
Just a thought -- there is a link that can be provided into the
archives
for a particular thread. What if either (in order of
preference) the list
manager, a moderator, or anybody on the list who knows how,
sent a message
to the unsubscribed poster containing that link? The poster
would not have
to subscribe (thereby getting what could potentially be a
dismaying number
of messages -- and often leading to a "please unsubscribe me"
message). Yet
they'd be able to follow the discussion, wouldn't they, to see
any responses
on the thread?
I *think* that the main source of the problem is that the
moderator's e-mail
program and/or his/her installation of the list management
software is
mis-configured.
The list management software is called "ezmlm" ("Easy Mail List
Management"
or some such). The ezmlm manual is on-line at
<http://www.ezmlm.org/manual/>.
Section 1.6 discusses replying to a message from an ezmlm
mailing list (see
http://www.ezmlm.org/manual/Replying.html#Replying>). It
suggests quite
clearly that a "Reply all" should go to the list *and* to the
unsubscribed
originator of the message.
Perhaps the moderator has overriden the default "reply to"
address in the
ezmlm config file(s) and/or in his/her own e-mail program ????
In the immortal words of Sandy Powell: can you hear me, mother?
The Reply-To header is forced to the list only. Whether that
could be changed or not, it's been discussed here many times and
nothing has ever happened -- I don't think mother hears us! I'm
also not sure how good we'd be at remembering to use Reply All,
or whether it would carry throughout the discussion. If somebody
just used Reply, and then somebody deeper in the thread actually
answers the OP's question, we'd be back where we are now, right?
I almost never use Reply All myself, I'm pretty sure I'd
sometimes forget! From what Paul (a? the? moderator for this
list) has said on-list, the moderators really don't have any say
in what the ezmlm setup is, and I think the approval process is
outside of the normal e-mail client use. The responsible person
or group, and the list owner, remain mysterious (at least as far
as I've seen here). One of the reasons I'm exploring the archive
link is that it could be accomplished as part of the list
management protocol, or by the moderator, or by people like us --
depending on who we could get to listen.
I agree that it's not 100% but if mother would listen it might be
a simpler solution to implement. Any "reply" or "reply all"
directly to the unsubscribed poster ("UP") at least gets to that
poster. I agree that a "reply" deeper in the thread might get lost
as far as the UP is concerned but perhaps that's less important.
The difficulty, if it is one, is that a simple "reply" to the UP
does not get noticed by the list so it might look as if the
question hasn't been answered. This might lead to multiple
responses but IMHO that's erring on the right side.
It sounds to me (please correct this if I'm wrong) that
implementing the "active link" requires work in the ezmlm (list
management) area which would have to be done by the same moderator
as the one who would need to change the "reply to" configuration.
Or have you got a cunning plan that implements the "active link"
without touching the moderator's system?
Cedrtainly not a cunning plan! If we could get to ezmlm config
folks, they could certainly implement the Reply-To change, and
possibly the archive link (though that's not ceertain; depends on
when what is done, I think). I don't think the moderators have any
influence over the Reply-To (they are not involved in ezmlm config,
from what Paul has said, and they don't exactly Forward messages; I
don't think their e-mail clients play a role in the approval), but
if they were willing, they could certainly send a message to the OP
with the archive link. Finally, absent any cooperation at all from
ezmlm or moderators, we as individuals could provide such a
response to the OP when a new thread has been started, and thus
give the OP access to the whole thread regardless of how anybody
else replies.
Barbara,
If we assume no help from ezmlm/moderators, how do you propose to
provide the link? It seems to me to be an extremely awkward
procedure but perhaps you have a shortcut I haven't visualised.
So far, the only way I know is to go to the archive and do a search
(probably just recent posts); when you select a message, you get the
link. Not slick, and I'd love it if there were a better way, but as
it is we spend a lot of energy on cc'ing, talking about cc'ing,
talking about talking..... Even this would, I think, significantly
reduce the amount of total effort required. And if we could just stop
the automatic advice to "subscribe so you can see replies" we'd
probably have fewer of our perennial "unsubscribe me" posts.
I'm tempted to just give it a try!
I'm certainly not going to gainsay that. I just think it's weird that
so many people seem to find it so hard or so demeaning to cc: a UP.
Yes, one can forget. But not often. And I also don't understand why
the odd "Forwarding to unsubscribed OP." should have caused so much
offence. Nowt so queer as folk.
Well, some are following via newsgroup and can't easily tell it's an
unsub, others could have a filter to make it clear but don't, many just
don't really care whether the unsub will see the message or not, or they
depend on you or somebody else to cc, or to post a comment that the OP
is an unsub. Lots of reasons, I guess, but a few of us take this whole
thing seriously and really want the unsub to get help, even at the cost
of some extra effort from ourselves. You, in particular, do a *lot* of
that, and I applaud you.
Should we send the link *only* to the UP or should we send it to the
UP *and* the list so that the UP doesn't get multiple copies? Of
course the latter won't deter some people who don't seem to read
threads and therefore send the same solution as others have already
sent :-( Or are we expected to check the thread first to see if the UP
has been sent the link so that, if s/he has, we don't send another copy?
If there's any manual action involved (by the moderator or us), I think
the list should be copied to help avoid duplication. It's really hard to
be sure who's first, even with threading, because of time lags in the
system -- but if I were the unsub, I'd rather get the link multiple
times than not at all. Once having done the search to get the link,
looking for another post that supplies the link wouldn't be hard, but it
really wouldn't be critical to do so IMHO. Another aspect of copying the
list is that it might cut down on the posts that disparage the OP to the
list, but wouldn't do so "to his face" (so to speak). And a side
benefit, now that I think of it, is that people would stay aware of the
fact that all posts are archived!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
