[Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts

[Josh Luthman]

Myself and others feel like these posts end up generating way more noise
than just letting it go. I'm not sure why it's so hard to just swipe right
rather than get frustrated with it.  I don't think anything outages@ is
urgent enough to put it on mute or something?

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 9:53 AM Andy Ringsmuth via Outages-discussion <
outages-discussion at outages.org> wrote:

> Good morning all,
>
> Yesterday’s AT&T flub again showed the need for us all to be much more
> deliberate about how we use the outages and outages-discussion lists.
>
> I’m not sure off the top of my head who is responsible for the overall
> setup on these lists, or I’d reach out to that person/people directly.
>
> Having said that, can we PLEASE consider setting the “Reply To:” default
> for the outages list to be outages-discussion? That is definitely an option
> within the Mailman list configuration.
>
> That would eliminate an insane number of extraneous (and very very long)
> messages for those of us who use the outages list as a notification source
> for immediate attention, which I believe to be the intent of that list. I’m
> looking at one message posted to outages yesterday that was a reply to a
> reply to a reply to a reply to a digest message. 513 lines of text!
>
>
> Thank you for the consideration.
>
> ----
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 202-1230
> andy at andyring.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion at outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20240223/a4cd7a0d/attachment.htm>