|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 50 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 11 of 50:
| 
Jun 20 23:39 UTC 2007 |
Not in the canonical configuration. With RCS, there's one copy of the files
under edit; with CVS and so on, multiple copies can be checked out into
workspaces (or sandboxes, or whatever they call it; I forget the exact
nomenclature). But by default, locks are strict in RCS.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 12 of 50:
|
Jun 20 23:52 UTC 2007 |
I've used CVS, so I'm used to multiple simultaneous edits.
However, I think in this case, it's like using excel to balance your
handwritten check register. Far too complex for what we need.
I'm happy with Mary editing the canonical version, to be kept somewhere else,
and making sure I have the latest revisions here.
|
mary
|
|
response 13 of 50:
|
Jun 21 02:22 UTC 2007 |
Agree. But thanks, Dan and Mike, for the explanation.
|
cross
|
|
response 14 of 50:
|
Jun 21 02:25 UTC 2007 |
Sure.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 15 of 50:
|
Sep 6 17:55 UTC 2007 |
Could we have an update on the number of users who have requested help
in setting up spam filters?
|
keesan
|
|
response 16 of 50:
|
Sep 6 19:51 UTC 2007 |
13. One of them just wanted a whitelist. One wrote back asking if the spam
filter was broken when the spam volume doubled recently. Another wrote asking
why he was getting spams 'from' grexers (not the vandals, these were spams
purporting to be from grexers, including the recipient). Someone else wrote
me for help with something unrelated, which I forwarded to staff.
Most of the people wrote within the first month. One of them reported back
that 80% of spams were caught by spamassassin, after keeping track for a few
days.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 17 of 50:
|
Sep 6 20:12 UTC 2007 |
Is that the same 13 you reported in response 7 back in June?
|
keesan
|
|
response 18 of 50:
|
Sep 6 22:23 UTC 2007 |
I think I had one more request since June. Maybe nobody else cares about
spam here.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 19 of 50:
|
Sep 7 01:03 UTC 2007 |
I know I don't.
|
keesan
|
|
response 20 of 50:
|
Sep 7 04:00 UTC 2007 |
How about asking in motd for people to write to some address about whether
they do or do not want to continue using grex for email, and if so, do they
want their mail filtered?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 21 of 50:
|
Sep 7 11:55 UTC 2007 |
Would you drop the system-wide mail filtering concept. If a total of 13
people were unable to deal with it individually, out of our thousands of
users, I'd say we've already got our poll. The fact than no one in the past
3 months has requested this service is even more telling.
We *were* conducting a poll. You were getting all the answers. People don't
want this. Active conference users have vehemently expressed this. Let it
go.
As for a poll about offering email on grex, that will be a member vote, not
an unprofessional attempt at polling. We won't argue about what the poll
means. We'll just go with the results.
|
keesan
|
|
response 22 of 50:
|
Sep 7 15:00 UTC 2007 |
If only a minority of members use a particular service at grex, is that a
reason to discontinue it? I never use party. Or play games.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 23 of 50:
|
Sep 7 15:02 UTC 2007 |
(takes the bait).
We are not talking about discontinuing a service because only a minority is
using it. Please don't troll in here. Agora is a better place.
|
keesan
|
|
response 24 of 50:
|
Sep 7 15:13 UTC 2007 |
DO you propose to discontinue mail if a majority of paying members votes to
do so? If not, what percentage of votes would you like to require? Obviously
some of us still use grex mail. What is the purposes of putting it to a vote?
|
cross
|
|
response 25 of 50:
|
Sep 7 19:04 UTC 2007 |
Regarding #24; I don't think we need to *eliminate* email right now, but if
we make it *opt-in* for those few that are interested in it, and make it clear
that it comes with almost no staff support, then that's a lot better than the
current situation.
|
keesan
|
|
response 26 of 50:
|
Sep 7 20:03 UTC 2007 |
Thanks, Dan. You can refer new users to me for help with spam filtering.
I think they should be warned there is no system filter. Were they going to
get a choice between local-only and local-plus-outside mail?
|
cross
|
|
response 27 of 50:
|
Sep 7 20:06 UTC 2007 |
Sindi, I don't think you understand: When I say `next to no staff support'
I don't mean for spam filtering, I mean *for email totally*. So if there's
an email problem, tough. If you lose your mail, tough. If you want some
enhancement to email, it ain't gonna happen. New users would have to jump
through some hoops to even get access to email.
|
keesan
|
|
response 28 of 50:
|
Sep 7 20:12 UTC 2007 |
Thanks, cross, for helping with the mail problem as much as you have done.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 29 of 50:
|
Sep 7 20:29 UTC 2007 |
Sindi, if this proposal passes, new users will not get any email at all.
They will not be given a choice.
Socially validated users will have full access to email, with no staff
support. This might be a limited-time solution, since socially
validated users might still abuse email.
If Social validation does not stop users from abusing email, we have
some other choices.
We can stop offering email altogether. Sentiment is building rapidly for
this measure.
We might continue to offer email with the cyberspace.org domain name,
but do it through Gmail or something similar as Dan suggested. This
would be an ongoing financial drain on Grex.
We might make email available only to completely validated users.
We might come up with some other idea. None of them will involve staff
support for email or email problems.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 30 of 50:
|
Sep 7 21:15 UTC 2007 |
I spent some time yesterday talking to a sales rep from Google about
e-mail outsourcing for my ISP, but part of the conversation was relevant
to Grex's situation, too.
It looks like in Grex's case it can be done through Gmail for free.
Web users can use a cyberspace.org-labelled web mail, command-line users
can use fetchmail and have it delivered to a local mail client.
Google prefers that most people use the web mail client because that's
how they earn the advertising revenue that supports the service, but it's
not a requirement.
If it can be worked out that easily and cheaply, why on earth don't we?
|
keesan
|
|
response 31 of 50:
|
Sep 7 21:28 UTC 2007 |
Please explain how this would work, in detail, maybe with a template that we
could edit (change 'user' to our own login, for instance).
|
maus
|
|
response 32 of 50:
|
Sep 8 00:03 UTC 2007 |
Simple. The user would type "man fetchmail" on their local system and
would configure the fetchmail client to download the mail via the pop
protocol. The user could then do with it as they want. Since you are the
only one demanding this, why don't you do the leg-work and tell us?
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 50:
|
Sep 8 01:14 UTC 2007 |
I am not going to use popmail under any name. I do not want to download
large attachments. Please stop suggesting this.
|
cross
|
|
response 34 of 50:
|
Sep 8 01:21 UTC 2007 |
Then I guess you're out of luck.
|
maus
|
|
response 35 of 50:
|
Sep 8 02:27 UTC 2007 |
You are SOL, then. If you want it so bad, do it yourself. I gave you
pointers to explanations of all the tools you would need. Quit whining,
quit demanding and either do for yourself or shut the fuck up.
|
