[Outages-discussion] Urgent - Re: Outages lists configuration thoughts

[Michael B. Williams]

I have a solution. Why don’t we require any replies to participate in a
tech hunger games to determine whose email gets sent to the list?

I honestly think this is a major issue facing the future of the internet so
we should spend more time figuring out an elegant solution as humanity is
relying upon us as a microcosm of the struggles modern technology users
face. If we can’t figure it out then all hope be lost.

I think technological problems are best solved with non technical solutions
when available.

Thoughts?

Sent from Gmail Mobile


On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 05:17 Matt Barton via Outages-discussion <
outages-discussion at outages.org> wrote:

> Hello
>
> I appreciate the brainstorming, but I'm not sure what problem we're trying
> to solve. Honestly, I don't know what's worse: the flood of "me too" posts
> or the folks who get upset about the "me too" posts.
>
> So what I do is just delete them and move on. It's a lot easier than
> getting upset or writing an email about it like I'm doing now. 😬 LOL
>
> --
> Matt Barton
> matt at netmonkey.net
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024, at 12:49 PM, Josh Luthman via Outages-discussion
> wrote:
>
> This is all proof programmers will spend 2 hours to avoid a delete button.
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 12:38 PM Joey Kelly via Outages-discussion <
> outages-discussion at outages.org> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 10:59:02 AM CST Jay R. Ashworth via Outages-
> discussion wrote:
> >
> > I suppose we might -- if it's technically practical -- have an
> arrangement
> > like:
> >
> > A daemon reposts to outages-notify any message that comes into outages
> > without "Re:" in its subject line?  Or, if the list processor doesn't
> break
> > the headers, perhaps any message that doesn't contain an In-Reply-To
> > header; do email clients still put those in?
> >
> > That might get us the best of both worlds...
>
> More too-cleverness...
>
> If the mailing list software is hackable, we could maybe add an X-whatever
> header line with an ID, then have procmail/formail (my tools) redirect all
> replies with that header to -discussion. The usual problems with such a
> setup
> would will apply: users not subbed to -discussion would be a common
> problem,
> but even that can be automated... if the sender's email isn't in the
> second
> list, he could be notified via an emailed template stating that the
> message
> was accepted but a sub to the second list (or a link to the archives) is
> suggested to see all replies, etc.
>
> $.02
>
> --
> Joey Kelly
> Minister of the Gospel and Linux Consultant
> http://joeykelly.net
> 504-239-6550
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion at outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion at outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240310/d9ec7046/attachment-0001.htm>