Who maintains ruby-talk?

[Joel VanderWerf]

My stance is this: I do feel zero pain with regard to spam. I checked
my GMail account and there are 6 emails in the last 30 days that I have
or the spam filter has marked spam. I can easily ignore threads and the
bandwidth is only relevant for Google (btw, SMTP should make just one
copy of every mail to all GMail accounts subscribed travel the net).

Also, I do not consider recent traffic as spam: apparently there was
enough interest in the community to discuss this. So even with
moderation enabled these messages would have made it into everybody's
inboxes.

On the contrary, moderation not only slows things down but it also has a
different effect: the community delegates maintaining a healthy biotope
to moderators. I prefer the current solution where everybody is
responsible for balancing things out. I think it has worked out
remarkably well in the last years and I do not really see a major
degradation.

I haven't see a compelling reason why we should have moderation now. As
long as that has not changed I am strongly against moderation.

I vote with Robert Klemme for the above reasons.

By usenet standards (or really any Internet public discussion
standards), the recent "spam" was a minor hiccup in the harmony of our
little group. This episode doesn't seem to have reduced the overall
civility of the group, so why worry?

 

[Michael Jackson]

Good for you for getting a response from the controller! As I stated a
few days ago, all of my attempts to communicate with the MLM
controller from my Gmail account failed. I have yet to run the script.
This should be interesting...

--
Michael Jackson
http://mjijackson.com/
@mjijackson

 

[Tony Arcieri]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

For what it's worth, here's the response I got after doing the same thing I
did to Walton. There was no confirmation process, so either something is
different with how we're subscribed, or something changed recently:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Subject: fml Command Status report (ruby-talk ML)
To: (e-mail address removed)


set UNSUBSCRIBE => BYE
BYE [[email protected]] accepted.
change member and recipient lists


(e-mail address removed), Be Seeing You!

************************************************************

Help: <mailto:[email protected]?body=help>
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe>

If you have any questions or problems,
please contact (e-mail address removed)
or
send e-mail with the body "help"(without quotes) to
(e-mail address removed)
(here is the automatic reply, so more preferable)

e.g. on a Unix Machine
(shell prompt)% echo "help" |Mail (e-mail address removed)

************************************************************

Good for you for getting a response from the controller! As I stated a
few days ago, all of my attempts to communicate with the MLM
controller from my Gmail account failed. I have yet to run the script.
This should be interesting...

 

[James Britt]

I wonder how that could have happened ;-)

Moderator! Ban this person for relentless smart-assitude!





BTW, thanks for testing that out.



--
James Britt

www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
www.neurogami.com - Smart application development

 

[Oddmund Strømme]

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?

 

[Tony Arcieri]

Yes, unfortunately that doesn't seem to work correctly with the multiple
inboxes feature.

You are aware of GMail's =91mute conversation=92 functionality, yes?

--=20
Tony Arcieri
Medioh! A Kudelski Brand

 

[Tony Arcieri]

Also, thunk enjoyed making off topic posts to otherwise legitimate threads.

Yes, unfortunately that doesn't seem to work correctly with the multiple
inboxes feature.

--=20
Tony Arcieri
Medioh! A Kudelski Brand

 

[James Britt]

Moderator! Ban this person for relentless smart-assitude!





BTW, thanks for testing that out.

Though later discussion has prompted me to test it myself to see what
happens.



James

 

[James Britt]

Though later discussion has prompted me to test it myself to see what
happens.

I got a confirmation e-mail.


James