[Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts

[Tim Burke]

As a semi-lurker as well, IMHO the hilariously long signatures are either caused by someone being too lazy to remove it from their response, or what I consider a perceived feeling of over importance... if I were bonkers enough to have a 48 line signature, I still wouldn't want my entire email signature, including cell phone, direct line, direct fax, mailing address, blood type, and mother's maiden name on a sesame seed bun to go out to thousands of people... but I don't think Mailman has a fix for that. 🙂
________________________________
From: Outages-discussion <outages-discussion-bounces at outages.org> on behalf of Shaun Potts via Outages-discussion <outages-discussion at outages.org>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
Cc: Outages Discussion <outages-discussion at outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts

Hopefully I'm not out of place here, but I want to just say as a 99% lurker and observer that the most obnoxious thing about reading all the back and forth here is people sending 5 word emails with 83 lines of signature. Can we trim that off or something?

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 9:59 AM Josh Luthman via Outages-discussion <outages-discussion at outages.org<mailto:outages-discussion at outages.org>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto:andy at andyring.com>

_______________________________________________
Outages-discussion mailing list
Outages-discussion at outages.org<mailto:Outages-discussion at outages.org>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
_______________________________________________
Outages-discussion mailing list
Outages-discussion at outages.org<mailto: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/a00c8e13/attachment.htm>