brad at stop.mail-abuse.org
Mon Mar 14 00:07:08 UTC 2005
At 1:00 PM -0600 2005-03-13, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> It's clear to everyone but you, that by gating a mailing list with an
> apparently different name and purpose to this newsgroup, you've changed
> it profoundly.
The stated purpose of the gateway, back in 2003 when I set it up
on ntp.org, was to provide e-mail access to the existing USENET
newsgroup comp.protocols.time.ntp. I got positive comments at the
time and I did not get any negative comments.
A number of people have benefited from the gateway during this
time. If you want to get the gateway shut down, you're going to have
to work harder than getting complaints from just one or two people to
offset all the good that has been done for all the people who have
made use of the gateway.
> You do that. Gee, I wish you'd mentioned *that* when I brought it up,
> so I wouldn't have just submitted the request.
I knew what the purpose was of the gateway I set up. I was
trying to figure out how you thought Gmane figured into that same
picture. It is now obvious that Gmane doesn't figure into this same
picture, because they're not capable of serving the same function.
> Now I understand! You're a curmudgeon, who's out of touch with the way
> things are done today.
Curmudgeon, I may be. However, I am quite well acquainted with
the way things are done today.
> You see, another stupid thing your software does,
> besides breaking threading, is it emails copies of every posting to the
> person being responded to.
No, that's my MUA. I reply to the mailing list, and my reply
also sends a copy of the reply directly to the recipient. If you
want different behaviour, you can set a "Reply-To:" header on your
postings and because the mailing list gateway does not strip those,
my MUA should act appropriately.
Or, you can do the same sort of thing that most people do on the
modern Internet, which is to configure their MUA to remove
duplicates. This sort of thing has been done for years through
procmail, and most decent MUAs that I know of can do the same sort of
> While this is acceptable on mailing lists,
> it's really not done on Usenet these days.
If I was posting via USENET, I would be doing the same. You
would be able to fix that via a "Reply-To:" header on your postings.
Again, pretty typical, and something that people have been doing for
> I misunderstood. I thought it was a completely different list, based on
> the fact that it has a completely different name. The "[ntp.questions]"
> in the subject also seems to indicate that the messages are unrelated
> to the main topic of the group.
Check the subject again. It says "[ntp:questions]", not
"[ntp.questions]". We use this convention for all of the mailing
lists we host -- the "hackers" mailing list gets "[ntp:hackers]", the
"announce" mailing list gets "[ntp:announce]", etc.... The
"questions" mailing list is no different.
However, once Mailman 2.1.6 is released and we have made the
upgrade, the gateway will strip all examples of the subject prefix
before posting to the newsgroup. At that point, you should no longer
see this on postings to the newsgroup, at least not that pass through
> Pretty much all the comp groups have
> mail-to-news gateways, but it seems only this one has to put up with
> the broken threading and the change in charter.
Feel free to provide me any and all details of these gateways.
If they've found a way to resolve the problem we ran into a few years
ago, and for which we have not yet found a good solution, then I'm
sure we'll be able to make code changes to suit.
> It's clear to me that you have a lot invested in this emotionally, and
> that your mind's made up, so there's really no point in talking about
> it anymore. Bye.
If you want to pick up your marbles and leave, you're welcome to do so.
On the other hand, I'm still looking for a good technical
solution to this problem.
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.
More information about the questions