A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Intransition wrote:
:=Of course, if your heart is set on using your inbox, then the trick is
:=to black list people like thunk --of course then you'll miss it when
:=thunk actually says something useful... well maybe not, but you get
:=the point.
And you'll get false negatives as well when people respond to him because
they aren't filtering. Centralized filtering reduces the chances that
someone else will respond in addition to reducing the overall bandwidth
usage of the list.
:=I setup the Google Group archive, and I can black list people at that
:=end if I want, I have never done so (expect obvious spam). I almost
:=did so for thunk however. But in the end I decided just to give it a
:=few days, and as usually the noise eventually died down.
I am currently taking a wait and see attitude as well. . . but if things
don't improve, unsubscribing is definitely an option.
···
--
Dylan Northrup - docx@io.com - http://www.io.com/~docx/
"Adversity is just change that we haven't adapted ourselves to yet."
- Aimee Mullins
This is precisely the case in which I feel a moderator should step in.
Relying on "the community" to police itself is silly.
Are you people really just a bunch of anarchists? I like moderation.
···
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:
My off-the-top-of-my recollection of annoying threads is that a good deal
of the longevity rests with people who continue to engage the original
poster.
And as I realize code speaks louder than words, here you go. Here's some
Ruby code to unsubscribe someone from ruby-talk without their permission.
This particular snippet is set up to unsubscribe thunk from ruby-talk.
Feel free to modify it to unsubscribe whoever you like:
I send you this only to point out that ruby-talk is very much insecure,
especially for anyone who reads it via email.
···
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri@medioh.com>wrote:
And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some
pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone
from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly.
I am not even sure moderation is a technical possibility. "ruby-talk" is
actually an amalgam of a Google user group, a forum, and a mailing list, all
of which are different systems run by different people.
As someone who has built a supersyndication system (in Ruby!), I completely
do not buy this argument. As far as I am aware, the MLM of
ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org is the central authority of the state of the mailing
list, and everything else is just syndication.
You're arguing that because ruby-talk is syndicated means it's
uncontrollable? Bullshit. Unless I'm confused the MLM is the central
authority.
And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some
pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone
from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly.
I am not sure that is a correct view of the system, but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken. As I understand it, there are three ways to "input" posts and three ways to view posts. They can and sometimes do operate independently, although when they do it is considered a malfunction, because we don't want to isolate part of the community. They essentially replicate each other, so I do not think any one part is considered a central authority.
As for your security concerns, they should be addressed to Matz if you have not already done so.
As for your moderation concerns, I do not share them, nor do I really understand your vehemence (my perception!) on the issue. Trolls should not be fed, spammers should be blocked. Threads I don't care about are not read. I am with Robert in saying we should be a community that gets along without the need of supervisors. If there is one rule in our anarchist mailing list/forum/newsgroup, it is "Matz is nice so we are nice." That is enough of a moderator for me.
-Justin
···
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Justin Collins <justincollins@ucla.edu>wrote:
Hosts are not what group posts into threads. Mail clients are.
Ignoring the bandwidth cost because you don't see it is not totally rational.
-s
···
On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> wrote:
I notice you both have email addresses from hosts I'm not familiar with,
perhaps they don't group posts into threads, so you get hit with about ten
times as many messages as I do. That would be frustrating.
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net | Seebs.Net <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures Fair game (Scientology) - Wikipedia <-- get educated!
I feel that you are unfair here, it might come as a surprise to some
but I am actually with Tony here. Kind of self protection, because in
a free list it is me who has to decide if someone is a troll, in
distress or not. Sometimes I also decide to make a joke because I
feel the list is just boring. If it were moderated I would not need to
make those decisions, in the first place and I would not see gross
language anymore neither.
Ok I agree that we will lose something, but maybe this something
should be elsewhere.
As a poster and quite nonconformist I will always step on some folk's
toe. If there were a moderator I probably could not.
But I am very much interested in arguments here, maybe I idealize what
I do not really know: A moderated list.
Thaughts?
Cheers
R.
···
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:27 PM, jonty <jontyjont@btinternet.com> wrote:
I have just rescanned my ruby-talk inbox folder - I can't see any'off topic'
threads,
what do you mean by off-topic?
There is a wide variety of discussions, many of which I feel free to ignore
but because there is no further filtering I often find myself drawn in to an
interesting discussion that improves my programming practice.
Are you being a little narrow minded?
--
Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.”
--- Confucius
Hi, yes, you got it right. I read ruby-talk via e-mail. Given my present
method of reading ruby-talk (via Gmail) it's been extremely distracting and
hindered my ability to read other mailing lists. I use Gmail's multiple
inbox feature to filter out mailing lists I'm subscribed to, and "high
traffic" threads get priority, even if it's the same person sending dozens
of messages to a single thread.
Perhaps the method by which you read ruby-talk differs, but given my present
mode of reading the list, thunk threads are eating up valuable second-inbox
space.
···
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I've missed something, I thought this was a reaction to Thunk, but
he only posts in a few threads.
A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Justin Collins wrote:
:=As for your moderation concerns, I do not share them, nor do I really
:=understand your vehemence (my perception!) on the issue. Trolls should not be
:=fed, spammers should be blocked.
In the absence of moderation or some central authority, spammers cannot be
blocked. Or, more properly, it's up to each individual subscriber to block
a spammer at the point of receipt.
:=Threads I don't care about are not read. I am
:=with Robert in saying we should be a community that gets along without the
:=need of supervisors. If there is one rule in our anarchist mailing
:=list/forum/newsgroup, it is "Matz is nice so we are nice." That is enough of a
:=moderator for me.
This is a fine philosophy until someone is not nice. Recently someone,
namely thunk, has been "not nice". If more people are "not nice" ruby-talk
goes from being a valuable community resource to "that place where there's
too much noise and not enough signal."
I do not share the same strident opposition to central authority that others
on this list seem to feel. I've been a list owner, a list moderator and a
member of lists where I've been moderated. As said previously, having
someone with the ability to say "Dude, stop being a wanker" and having the
ability to back that up is nothing new on the Internet. Hell, moderated
e-mail lists were nothing new 20 years ago when I got my first e-mail
account. If you believe having a moderator (or group of moderators) will
make the list a tool of control by the dictator(s) at the top, your belief
goes against the vast majority of historical examples of moderated e-mail
lists. The more important question would be whether you could find enough
candidates a) trusted by the majority of the community who b) would be
willing to spend the extra time and deal with the hassle that is being a
list moderator. Libertarian ideas of freedom from tyranny might be academic
concerns if only because nobody would want to moderate the list in the first
place.
···
--
Dylan Northrup - docx@io.com - http://www.io.com/~docx/
"Adversity is just change that we haven't adapted ourselves to yet."
- Aimee Mullins
Actually, all that will do is cause the user to get a confirmation
e-mail asking if they really want to unsubscribe. I suppose it could
lead to some annoying spam, but I hardly think it's a critical security bug.
···
On 4/15/2010 12:00 AM, Tony Arcieri wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri@medioh.com>wrote:
And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some
pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone
from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly.
And as I realize code speaks louder than words, here you go. Here's some
Ruby code to unsubscribe someone from ruby-talk without their permission.
This particular snippet is set up to unsubscribe thunk from ruby-talk.
Feel free to modify it to unsubscribe whoever you like:
Oh BTW, sorry for reposting, but wouldn't there be a possibility of
eating our cake *and* having it?
I was thinking about a moderated sublist generated by some humble
"moderator" who would act as a filter?
> I notice you both have email addresses from hosts I'm not familiar with,
> perhaps they don't group posts into threads, so you get hit with about
ten
> times as many messages as I do. That would be frustrating.
Hosts are not what group posts into threads. Mail clients are.
Sorry, I do my email online, so used the wrong terminology. I just mean that
gmail will take 50 posts about ruids, and group them all together in a
single thread, so it doesn't spam my inbox. It also filters the threads out
and sets them in their own separate area, so they never touch my inbox at
all. If your _client_ didn't do this, I can see how the list could spam
your inbox. Or maybe we're talking about something other than lots of long
posts about boids and ruids in a small number of threads? If so, I think the
people calling for moderation need to clarify specifically what their issue
is.
Ignoring the bandwidth cost because you don't see it is not totally
rational.
Is email bandwidth even an issue these days? I stream all of my music, all
day. Pretty sure one minute of streaming music exceeds an entire month's
worth of emails (assuming no attachments). Though it's not an issue if you
do it online, anyway, because the emails just sit on a server somewhere,
they wouldn't affect bandwidth unless you went to view them.
···
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:
On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> wrote:
A decent list moderator is not going to freak out about the normal social
noise that makes a list a viable community. Good moderators don't do a
whole lot; they just clip the extreme edges and nudge people towards
courtesy, and the rest takes care of itself.
-s
···
On 2010-04-14, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
As a poster and quite nonconformist I will always step on some folk's
toe. If there were a moderator I probably could not.
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net | Seebs.Net <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures Fair game (Scientology) - Wikipedia <-- get educated!
I feel that you are unfair here, it might come as a surprise to some
but I am actually with Tony here. Kind of self protection, because in
a free list it is me who has to decide if someone is a troll, in
distress or not. Sometimes I also decide to make a joke because I
feel the list is just boring. If it were moderated I would not need to
make those decisions, in the first place and I would not see gross
language anymore neither.
Ok I agree that we will lose something, but maybe this something
should be elsewhere.
I believe you may underestimate the value of what we would be losing with moderation. Delegating care for a community to a few "professional" (in quotes because they won't be paid) caretakers does have the potential to change the character of the community. I am reading in other places as well and I am always amazed about the kindness and openness of our community here. It may be even more amazing that this happened without moderation. But it may actually be the other way round: because we do not have moderation this is such a friendly place (OK, obviously not all will agree with me here).
As a poster and quite nonconformist I will always step on some folk's
toe. If there were a moderator I probably could not.
That should make you wary of moderation, shouldn't it?
Maybe I want to continue to believe that the Ruby community is special
- at least in some ways (for example, because it does not need
moderation). You might call that "romantic" (which I believe I am
generally not) but you would have to concede that it has worked out
remarkably good for the longest time. If you argue with a recent
hiccup in favor of getting rid of a tradition then this is a weak
argument in my eyes.
Kind regards
robert
···
2010/4/15 Dylan Northrup <docx@io.com>:
If you believe having a moderator (or group of moderators) will
make the list a tool of control by the dictator(s) at the top, your belief
goes against the vast majority of historical examples of moderated e-mail
lists.
That's what a secure MLM would do. The ruby-talk one does not. If you
don't believe me I can run it against your email address.
···
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Walton Hoops <walton@vyper.hopto.org>wrote:
Actually, all that will do is cause the user to get a confirmation
e-mail asking if they really want to unsubscribe. I suppose it could
lead to some annoying spam, but I hardly think it's a critical security
bug.
A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Justin Collins wrote:
:=As for your moderation concerns, I do not share them, nor do I really
:=understand your vehemence (my perception!) on the issue. Trolls should not be
:=fed, spammers should be blocked.
In the absence of moderation or some central authority, spammers cannot be
blocked. Or, more properly, it's up to each individual subscriber to block
a spammer at the point of receipt.
Oh, as for that, Matz blocks spammers on the mailing list, and Google has spam filtering on its side for the newsgroup. I am not sure about the forums.
Hi, yes, you got it right. I read ruby-talk via e-mail. Given my present
method of reading ruby-talk (via Gmail) it's been extremely distracting and
hindered my ability to read other mailing lists. I use Gmail's multiple
inbox feature to filter out mailing lists I'm subscribed to, and "high
traffic" threads get priority, even if it's the same person sending dozens
of messages to a single thread.
Perhaps the method by which you read ruby-talk differs, but given my present
mode of reading the list, thunk threads are eating up valuable second-inbox
space.
You are aware of GMail's ‘mute conversation’ functionality, yes?
Sorry, I do my email online, so used the wrong terminology. I just mean that
gmail will take 50 posts about ruids, and group them all together in a
single thread, so it doesn't spam my inbox. It also filters the threads out
and sets them in their own separate area, so they never touch my inbox at
all. If your _client_ didn't do this, I can see how the list could spam
your inbox.
You don't seem to understand.
It doesn't matter whether you *see* them. If they're sent, they're taking
up bandwidth for every single reader, and that is a significant cost.
Is email bandwidth even an issue these days?
Yes. It's a HUGE issue. Largely because about 96% of it is spam.
I stream all of my music, all
day. Pretty sure one minute of streaming music exceeds an entire month's
worth of emails (assuming no attachments).
Nope. More importantly, remember that the emails go to *every reader*.
-s
···
On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net | Seebs.Net <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures Fair game (Scientology) - Wikipedia <-- get educated!
Might be losing. Might not. Part of the point is that you think a bit
about what you WANT from moderation -- then you set things up to get it.
-s
···
On 2010-04-15, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
I believe you may underestimate the value of what we would be losing
with moderation.
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net | Seebs.Net <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures Fair game (Scientology) - Wikipedia <-- get educated!
didn't do this, I can see how the list could spam