GCC toolchain for MSP430

----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: Peter Bigot
Gesendet am: 16 Nov 2010 18:35:28

> 1) I propose to change the list management so that email to it from people
> who are not subscribed is immediately bounced (saying that the list requires
> subscription for posting), rather than put into a pending bucket where Chris
> or I have to look at it.  If it's worth our time to read, it's worth the
> sender's time to subscribe so they can see responses.

> 2) Anybody who subscribes from an address that implements a screening filter
> like Boxbe so that mail to the list results in a request to add yourself to
> the recipient's "Guest List" will be summarily unsubscribed.  Maybe I'll
> send an email saying why.  I won't bother to add myself to your guest list
> to tell you that it's happened.  Manage your spam without inconveniencing
> me, thank you very much.

> Comments on either of these?

Some. While most in the list agreed to these proposals (and I can see the benefits), it has some drawbacks too:

1) Personally, I us a different mail account for this list than for normal mail. it keeps the list mail in its own channel.
Since the mail is supposed to appear in the list and therefor is received again, I usually don't save a local copy.
Using a webmailer or accessing the account from an internet cafe forbids storage of sent mails too.
But sometiem sit happens that I accidentally send the mail from the wrong account. 
If it gets bounced in the (nowadays) usual way, that means without an unquoted copy of the original mail text,
the mail is lost.
So if it is bounced, please bounce it with the original, unaltered and not packaged (as attachment or whatever) content, so one can re-send it from the right account
without too much hassle.

Also, one thing I rellay dislike these days is the neccessity to register ones mail address everywhere.
Here, I'm registered user, but on my journey through the net I often find questions about this and that
(including MSP) and I'd really like to answer, but then I had to register to this forum, so I just wander away.

Forcing people to register to the mailing list will repel all people who want to use mspgcc and have a question,
but don't want to marry the list.

2) While I completely undestand why you want this, it also exposes a problem. Those systems are there not for fun or
to make your life more difficult, but (usually) in a deliberate attempt to fight spam. (even if some abuse the mechanism
for their own marketing). Their number is increasing.
Generally forbidding those behind such a system access to the mailing list is like asking people to turn off their virus scanner
before accessing your web site or something similar.
Also, what about people who have a mail responder (because of temporary absence) on their mail address? It will spam the list
(already happened several time). Will you also automatically unsubscribe them? 
Isn't a filter on the mailing list side the better solution?

Yes, things are getting more and more complicated, and maintaining a list sometimes is hard work. A work I really appreciate.
But a list that forbids almost everything is pretty much useless.


----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: M.Andree
Gesendet am: 17 Nov 2010 13:53:58

> possibly the list can be set to just have application/octet-stream and
> text/html, text/enriched, v-cards, image/*, audio/* ... and thereabouts
> stripped, so that text/plain in multiparts makes it to the list, and if a
> message is pure text/html it gets bounced.    It is run on mailman, so it's
> technically possible and more a discussion about policy than anything else.

> The application/octet-stream rule is a bit nasty since some mailers only ever
> declare application/octet-stream for their attachments, so sending patches
> remains a hassle for some people -- but it avoids a lot of junk too.

Why not restricting the list to plain text?
Some people are sending plain text (like I do), others send their mails as multipart mime (with v-card or whatever attached),
the mailing list itself adds a footer as separate mime part. Peter Bigots mails arrive with the text as 
double-coated Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
(which is very nasty as my slim no-install mailing program doesn't show this type at all and I always have to look at the mail source)
and others send it as encoded data or as text+HTML double or plain html.

And it's easy but stupid to say 'it must be your mailer that's broken, I can see my own mail in my own without problems' :)

It should be easy to extract the plain text part from the mail by the mailer and discard all the rest.

You cannot demand that people configure their mailing program to fit strict rules, as other lists may do so with other (and conflicting) rules,
so people are repelled from using the list.
For techies like you and me, it might be easy to setup a separate account and configure it appropriately, but not everyone dealing with an MSP
is also a mail expert or computer geek. Many don't even know how to switch off the text/HTML sending in outlook.


JMGross

Am 25.11.2010 14:11, schrieb JMGross:
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
> Von: Peter Bigot
> Gesendet am: 16 Nov 2010 18:35:28
> 
>> 1) I propose to change the list management so that email to it from people
>> who are not subscribed is immediately bounced (saying that the list requires
>> subscription for posting), rather than put into a pending bucket where Chris
>> or I have to look at it.  If it's worth our time to read, it's worth the
>> sender's time to subscribe so they can see responses.
> 
>> 2) Anybody who subscribes from an address that implements a screening filter
>> like Boxbe so that mail to the list results in a request to add yourself to
>> the recipient's "Guest List" will be summarily unsubscribed.  Maybe I'll
>> send an email saying why.  I won't bother to add myself to your guest list
>> to tell you that it's happened.  Manage your spam without inconveniencing
>> me, thank you very much.
> 
>> Comments on either of these?
> 
> Some. While most in the list agreed to these proposals (and I can see the benefits), it has some drawbacks too:
> 
> 1) Personally, I us a different mail account for this list than for normal mail. it keeps the list mail in its own channel.
> Since the mail is supposed to appear in the list and therefor is received again, I usually don't save a local copy.
> Using a webmailer or accessing the account from an internet cafe forbids storage of sent mails too.

No.  The list is driven by Mailman, so you can subscribe with all your
accounts that you need to post from and set all but one to "nomail"
mode, i. e. you can post because you're subscribed, but you don't
receive copies.

Your webmailer should offer the opportunity to save local copies
anyways, such as Auto-Bcc, sent folders, or thereabouts.

And IMNSHO, many webmailers are broken in that, for instance, they break
threading.  Messages with Re:, but without In-Reply-To:/References:
headers should be rejected, too.

Your messages don't usually appear threaded but start new threads.  This
is a nuisance.

> But sometiem sit happens that I accidentally send the mail from the wrong account. 

It is your responsibility to keep track of your accounts.

> If it gets bounced in the (nowadays) usual way, that means without an unquoted copy of the original mail text,
> the mail is lost.

This is rather uncommon.
> So if it is bounced, please bounce it with the original, unaltered and not packaged (as attachment or whatever) content, so one can re-send it from the right account
> without too much hassle.
> 
> Also, one thing I rellay dislike these days is the neccessity to register ones mail address everywhere.
> Here, I'm registered user, but on my journey through the net I often find questions about this and that
> (including MSP) and I'd really like to answer, but then I had to register to this forum, so I just wander away.
> 
> Forcing people to register to the mailing list will repel all people who want to use mspgcc and have a question,
> but don't want to marry the list.

But that's exactly what keeps quality reasonable.  Anonymous posting
allows for random ranting, and random half-wisdom spread around, and
it's - for the list regulars - a major effort to get that overcome.

> 2) While I completely undestand why you want this, it also exposes a problem. Those systems are there not for fun or
> to make your life more difficult, but (usually) in a deliberate attempt to fight spam. (even if some abuse the mechanism
> for their own marketing). Their number is increasing.
> Generally forbidding those behind such a system access to the mailing list is like asking people to turn off their virus scanner
> before accessing your web site or something similar.

Not at all.  It exposes several technical problems of these "anti-spam"
systems.
1 - forged senders can make these systems take part in a distributed
denial of service attack
2 - automated mailers of any kind are supposed to send to the envelope
sender, not to the From: address.  The envelope sender is set to the
list processing software. I routinely ask that challenge-response
systems that challenge the From: address on lists be permanently banned
from the list.
3 - challenge-response systems need to allow whitelisting mailing lists
in order to be useful.  If they don't, they aren't up to their task and
should be deinstalled.

> Also, what about people who have a mail responder (because of temporary absence) on their mail address? It will spam the list
> (already happened several time). Will you also automatically unsubscribe them? 

Again, this is supposed to send to the envelope sender, and since list
mail can be recognized from mail headers, these vacation responders are
supposed to STFU and not send anything.

> Isn't a filter on the mailing list side the better solution?

No need.  Just because some technical systems offered to users haven't
arrived in the 21st century yet doesn't mean that list operators and
users with modern software should jump hoops or put up with antediluvian
habits.

> Yes, things are getting more and more complicated, and maintaining a list sometimes is hard work. A work I really appreciate.
> But a list that forbids almost everything is pretty much useless.

It allows plain text posting by subscribers, so what's the point?

----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: Matthias Andree
Gesendet am: 29 Nov 2010 12:15:21

> The list is driven by Mailman, so you can subscribe with all your
> accounts that you need to post from and set all but one to "nomail"
> mode, i. e. you can post because you're subscribed, but you don't
> receive copies.

Interesting. How does one know this if he's not the list maintainer?
And how does this work?
I'm sure there is a howto somewhere and if you know 'how to' you'll find the howto. :)

> Your webmailer should offer the opportunity to save local copies
> anyways, such as Auto-Bcc, sent folders, or thereabouts.

Yes. The webmailer. Then the copies are in a private folder of the mailer, 
and not where they are on my main system.
Anyway, as I said before, there i sno sense in forcing people to rearrange their
organisation to fit this group. As the reuired reorganisation needed of a different group
may be incompatible, leaving people to decide to use one of them but not both. That's
surely not the intention of a mailing list.

Also, why keeping a copy in sent when the mail already bounces back through 
the list (unless it is rejected)?

I'm sure there are many people who see it the same. Yet since they'll never appear here,
you'll never know of them and therefore you might think there are none. :)

> Your messages don't usually appear threaded but start new threads.  This
> is a nuisance.

Hmm, well, I didn't know and will look into this, but I doubt there's anything I can do.
The mailing program I usually use is a portable low-footprint program that does not
mess with the inbox unless I explicitely tell it so.
It's a but like the old Windows Messaging 2.0. Download of headers only, unless you
click on a mail and so on.
I got it from my hoster and I'm happy with it for ten years now (with updates, of course).
Small, fast, portable, useful. And it normally does its job.

> It is your responsibility to keep track of your accounts.

I didn't say otherwise. I just said that it is nice to at least see a copy of the mail that was rejected.
Or have the mail forwarded anyway if the content fits the group.

> If it gets bounced in the (nowadays) usual way, that means without an unquoted copy of the original mail text,
> the mail is lost.

This is rather uncommon.

It WAS uncommon. I guess that many mail manager have move to not quote the original content because
of the high percentage of spam and (possible but yet undetected) virus mails in the number of rejected mails.

>> Forcing people to register to the mailing list will repel all people who want to use mspgcc and have a question,
>> but don't want to marry the list.

>But that's exactly what keeps quality reasonable.  Anonymous posting
>allows for random ranting, and random half-wisdom spread around, and
>it's - for the list regulars - a major effort to get that overcome.

No. IMHO, it increases the percentage of people who need assistance and therefore have to subscribe, by
filtering out a large number of those who could provide assistance 'on-the-fly' but won't due to the registration effort.


>> 2) While I completely undestand why you want this, it also exposes a problem. Those systems are there not for fun or
>> to make your life more difficult, but (usually) in a deliberate attempt to fight spam. (even if some abuse the mechanism
>> for their own marketing). Their number is increasing.
>> Generally forbidding those behind such a system access to the mailing list is like asking people to turn off their virus scanner
>> before accessing your web site or something similar.

>Not at all.  It exposes several technical problems of these "anti-spam"
>systems.

So you want to punish people because their provider uses a system you don't like?

>> Isn't a filter on the mailing list side the better solution?

>No need.  Just because some technical systems offered to users haven't
>arrived in the 21st century yet doesn't mean that list operators and
>users with modern software should jump hoops or put up with antediluvian
>habits.

Well, push the task of doing technical adjustments to users who are often unskilled inthis area or have
no influence on it, to keep work from the skilled operator. Great approach.

I have a better idea (just to be the advocatus diaboli): Close the list. It reduces the effort to zero, removes
all problems with mailing systems which do not apply to your standards and generally frees much of your time.
Isn't this a great idea? And really simple to do.

>> Yes, things are getting more and more complicated, and maintaining a list sometimes is hard work. A work I really appreciate.
>> But a list that forbids almost everything is pretty much useless.

> It allows plain text posting by subscribers, so what's the point?

Plain text posting is a technique from the last milennium and neither up-to-date nor commonly available
unless you're system administrator and deliberately configure your system against the default.

Count how many people are doing plain tex tposting in this group. You and me and who else?
The rest is using mime-encoded, double-mime-encoded, Base64 encoding and others.

Well I live with computers longer as most today 'experts' live on earth.
I can live with most (I'm flexible) and I can even live without. Others maybe can't.

JMGross.

On 2010-11-30, JMGross <mspgcc@...> wrote:
> ----- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht -----
> Von: Matthias Andree
> Gesendet am: 29 Nov 2010 12:15:21
>
>> The list is driven by Mailman, so you can subscribe with all your
>> accounts that you need to post from and set all but one to "nomail"
>> mode, i. e. you can post because you're subscribed, but you don't
>> receive copies.
>
> Interesting. How does one know this if he's not the list maintainer?

You point a browser at the link in the header of every message:

  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users

Or you send a message to the "help" address that's in the headers of
every message:

  mailto:mspgcc-users-request@...

> And how does this work? I'm sure there is a howto somewhere and if
> you know 'how to' you'll find the howto. :)

It's all in the headers.  All mailing lists put everything you need to
know to subscribe, unsubscribe, or adjust your settings in the headers
of every message.

>> Your webmailer should offer the opportunity to save local copies
>> anyways, such as Auto-Bcc, sent folders, or thereabouts.
>
> Yes. The webmailer. Then the copies are in a private folder of the
> mailer, and not where they are on my main system. Anyway, as I said
> before, there i sno sense in forcing people to rearrange their
> organisation to fit this group. As the reuired reorganisation needed
> of a different group may be incompatible, leaving people to decide to
> use one of them but not both. That's surely not the intention of a
> mailing list.

I'm not sure what you're saying in that paragraph.  The proposed
changes for this list will make it the same as many, many other lists.

If your mail client is so bad, perhaps you'd be better off reading the
list via gmane.org:

  http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.texas-instruments.msp430.gcc.user

Personally, I use a news client and point it at gmane's NNTP server.
  
> Also, why keeping a copy in sent when the mail already bounces back
> through the list (unless it is rejected)?

"Bounce" means something very specific in the context of e-mail and
mailing lists.  I don't think you mean "bounce".

> I'm sure there are many people who see it the same. Yet since they'll
> never appear here, you'll never know of them and therefore you might
> think there are none. :)
>
>> Your messages don't usually appear threaded but start new threads. 
>> This is a nuisance.
>
> Hmm, well, I didn't know and will look into this, but I doubt there's anything I can do.

Yes there is:

 1) Use a working mail client (web-based or otherwise).  Gmail works fine.

 2) Use the web UI at gmane.org.

 3) Use an NNTP client pointed to gmane.org's NNTP server.

> The mailing program I usually use is a portable low-footprint program
> that does not mess with the inbox unless I explicitely tell it so.

The mailing program you usually use is broken.

> It's a but like the old Windows Messaging 2.0. Download of headers
> only, unless you click on a mail and so on. I got it from my hoster
> and I'm happy with it for ten years now (with updates, of course).
> Small, fast, portable, useful. And it normally does its job.

Except it seems to be broken in several respects, or you wouldn't be
breaking thread nor complaining now about how your mail client works
with mailing lists who require posters to subscribe.

>> It allows plain text posting by subscribers, so what's the point?
>
> Plain text posting is a technique from the last milennium and neither
> up-to-date nor commonly available unless you're system administrator
> and deliberately configure your system against the default.

Whatever.

Feel free to start your own mailing list.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Do you think the
                                  at               "Monkees" should get gas on
                              gmail.com            odd or even days?

Am 30.11.2010 12:32, schrieb JMGross:
> 
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
> Von: Matthias Andree
> Gesendet am: 29 Nov 2010 12:15:21
> 
>> The list is driven by Mailman, so you can subscribe with all your
>> accounts that you need to post from and set all but one to "nomail"
>> mode, i. e. you can post because you're subscribed, but you don't
>> receive copies.
> 
> Interesting. How does one know this if he's not the list maintainer?

Read the list websites perhaps?

> And how does this work?

Read the list websites perhaps?

> I'm sure there is a howto somewhere and if you know 'how to' you'll find the howto. :)

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
log in and set options. Perhaps have your password reminder mailed first.
As simple as that.

>> Your webmailer should offer the opportunity to save local copies
>> anyways, such as Auto-Bcc, sent folders, or thereabouts.
> 
> Yes. The webmailer. Then the copies are in a private folder of the mailer, 
> and not where they are on my main system.

My webmailers run off an IMAP server, no big deal here.

> Anyway, as I said before, there i sno sense in forcing people to rearrange their
> organisation to fit this group. As the reuired reorganisation needed of a different group
> may be incompatible, leaving people to decide to use one of them but not both. That's
> surely not the intention of a mailing list.

Certainly there aren't individual persons, however helpful they are, to
overthrow all common mailing list conventions.

> Also, why keeping a copy in sent when the mail already bounces back through 
> the list (unless it is rejected)?

Whatever you crave for...  You can have it your way with Mailman.

>> Your messages don't usually appear threaded but start new threads.  This
>> is a nuisance.
> 
> Hmm, well, I didn't know and will look into this, but I doubt there's anything I can do.

Yes there is. Use an IMAP or POP3 account to subscribe/reply, and Thunderbird.

> The mailing program I usually use is a portable low-footprint program that does not
> mess with the inbox unless I explicitely tell it so.

Mutt gets threading right, if that's low-footprint.

>>> Forcing people to register to the mailing list will repel all people who want to use mspgcc and have a question,
>>> but don't want to marry the list.
> 
>>But that's exactly what keeps quality reasonable.  Anonymous posting
>>allows for random ranting, and random half-wisdom spread around, and
>>it's - for the list regulars - a major effort to get that overcome.
> 
> No. IMHO, it increases the percentage of people who need assistance and therefore have to subscribe, by
> filtering out a large number of those who could provide assistance 'on-the-fly' but won't due to the registration effort.

So. It keeps the on-the-fly spammer out just the same.

[about challenging list posters]
>>Not at all.  It exposes several technical problems of these "anti-spam"
>>systems.
> 
> So you want to punish people because their provider uses a system you don't like?

This isn't about punishing, but about adhering to decade-old conventions.
Automated replies to list postings, to my personal address, are considered undue
harrassment, a breach of conventions, and I consider that spamming.

And consider the scare it gives if you are the on-the-fly "supporter" from your
scenario and get a dozen challenges back.  This mustn't happen, it drives
(again, scares) far more people away.

>>No need.  Just because some technical systems offered to users haven't
>>arrived in the 21st century yet doesn't mean that list operators and
>>users with modern software should jump hoops or put up with antediluvian
>>habits.
> 
> Well, push the task of doing technical adjustments to users who are often unskilled inthis area or have
> no influence on it, to keep work from the skilled operator. Great approach.

Come on, we're talking about developers.  If they can't be bothered to configure
their mailers properly, how can they write decent software for a microcontroller?

> I have a better idea (just to be the advocatus diaboli): Close the list. It reduces the effort to zero, removes
> all problems with mailing systems which do not apply to your standards and generally frees much of your time.
> Isn't this a great idea? And really simple to do.

Yeah, right.  Ignoring sarcasm, supporting proven conventions is something
entirely different from taking this to the extremes.

>>> Yes, things are getting more and more complicated, and maintaining a list sometimes is hard work. A work I really appreciate.
>>> But a list that forbids almost everything is pretty much useless.
> 
>> It allows plain text posting by subscribers, so what's the point?
> 
> Plain text posting is a technique from the last milennium and neither up-to-date nor commonly available
> unless you're system administrator and deliberately configure your system against the default.

Yes. Mailman strips of the alternative text/html (which is useless and often
dangerous) part and leaves the text/plain in no matter if it's in utf-8, koi8-r,
iso-8859-* or us-ascii (usually), and if it's quoted-printable, base64 or whatnot.

> Count how many people are doing plain tex tposting in this group. You and me and who else?
> The rest is using mime-encoded, double-mime-encoded, Base64 encoding and others.

So?  The point is not letting random screenshots, excess HTML markup garbage
from old Microsoft-weds-Office-to-the-Web style software that doesn't convey
information but formats every word in an explicit font (I take it this got fixed
in later versions of the software I have in mind), and random other attachments.

-- 
Matthias Andree

----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: M. Andree
Gesendet am: 30 Nov 2010 18:14:39

>> Interesting. How does one know this if he's not the list maintainer?

> Read the list websites perhaps?

Well, there's no godly rule that a list must have a website nor does everyone subscribe
to a list through a web interface.
And there's no general rule what the name of a website has to be if it belongs to a list.
Maybe this is common to sourceforge lists, but there are many others.
Thinking that everything is the same everywhere as it is here and everyone must be
knowing this, is simply hybris.
This is not a mailing list about mailing lists for mailing list administration experts.
It is a list for mspgcc users, and neither mspgcc nor users implies special or even
general knowledge of what you think what is 'usual' for mailing lists.

Also, not knowing that something (that is not 'common' for 'everyone') is possible
implies that one does not actively search for it.

The list is/was working so why searching the web or reading manuals
Simply turning away is the easier choice. And saves much time.
And cannot be desireable.

>> Yes. The webmailer. Then the copies are in a private folder of the mailer, 
>> and not where they are on my main system.

> My webmailers run off an IMAP server, no big deal here.

With the most important word written last.
That something is working for you does not mean that it is the global revelation for everyone.
Else everyone would use MAC, Linux, Windows (pick one and delete the others).

>> Anyway, as I said before, there i sno sense in forcing people to rearrange their
>> organisation to fit this group. As the reuired reorganisation needed of a different group
>> may be incompatible, leaving people to decide to use one of them but not both. That's
>> surely not the intention of a mailing list.

>Certainly there aren't individual persons, however helpful they are, to
>overthrow all common mailing list conventions.

Sure. As sure as the term 'common mailing list conventions' can be questioned.
'Sourceforge list conventions' or 'mailman based list conventions' or whatever, well, maybe.
But definitely not 'common'.
There's always a world beyond the own horizon. And who thinks he has the largest
usually has the narrowest.

>> Hmm, well, I didn't know and will look into this, but I doubt there's anything I can do.
> Yes there is. Use an IMAP or POP3 account to subscribe/reply, and Thunderbird.
Once more, you think just because things aren't working for others like they do for you means
that they use the wrong tools and have to change.
I don't like nor use outlook, but I don't try to force (this way or that) others to stop using it.
if Thunderbird is the only mail client that 'does it right' in your opinion, so maybe it's your opinion that's wrong.
That one or two clients implement features which are niche doesn't make them any standard nor is it a reason
to discriminate everything and everyone who does not use them.

if you want your world exactly as you think it has to be, then close your eyes and mouth and be happy
with yourself. Or accept that the world isn't as you think it should be. And that not everyone will agree to
what you think.

>> The mailing program I usually use is a portable low-footprint program that does not
>> mess with the inbox unless I explicitely tell it so.
> Mutt gets threading right, if that's low-footprint.

What's 'right'? That some mail client has introduced a more clever way to do threading than scanning the subject
is fine, but does not mean that everything else is wrong.

I also fought windmills in the past about how things should be. And I've seen many clever ideas failing agains 
the less clever but more common (or better pushed) competitors. And I calmed down over the years.
Maybr you'll arrive at this point somewhen - If you didn't get an heart attack before.

>> No. IMHO, it increases the percentage of people who need assistance and therefore have to subscribe, by
>> filtering out a large number of those who could provide assistance 'on-the-fly' but won't due to the registration effort.
> So. It keeps the on-the-fly spammer out just the same.
indeed. But some spammers will find their way as well as some users. The question is what's the desired condition?
The two border-situations are clear: all interested users as well as any fly-by spammer or 
no spammers, no effort, no tiem to spend but also no users. Both not desireable. Where to put the border?
"the optimum tax rate is between 0 and 100%" 
Sounds obvoius at first, but on the second thought it has more than one deeper truth.


[about challenging list posters]
>> So you want to punish people because their provider uses a system you don't like?
>This isn't about punishing, but about adhering to decade-old conventions.
>Automated replies to list postings, to my personal address, are considered undue
>harrassment, a breach of conventions, and I consider that spamming.

To the first part I agree. To the last, partly.
Yet spamming is a problem anyway. Once more the question is where to put the border
between fighting spam and producing one through the fight against it.
Anyway, often people cannot do anythign against it except searching for another service.
Do they? Well, facebook still exists, so the obvious answer is: no. :)

>And consider the scare it gives if you are the on-the-fly "supporter" from your
>scenario and get a dozen challenges back.  This mustn't happen, it drives
>(again, scares) far more people away.

Well, if they are really only on-the-fly-supporters, then they did their work before getting the 'spam'
So they surely won't return and delete their post. :)
No, that's not nice thinking, ignore the last sentence :)

>> Well, push the task of doing technical adjustments to users who are often unskilled inthis area or have
>> no influence on it, to keep work from the skilled operator. Great approach.

>Come on, we're talking about developers.  If they can't be bothered to configure
> their mailers properly, how can they write decent software for a microcontroller?

We're talking about MSP developers. An MSP does not have enough memory to hold a typical linux makefile.
And has NOTHING to do with mailign list adminstration or common computer knowledge at all.
In many cases it does nto even mean that there are any programming skills above elementary school.
As one of the main supporters at TIs E2E community I know what I'm talking about.
People coming there often do not have the slightest clue how to start with the project they are paid for.

>> Plain text posting is a technique from the last milennium and neither up-to-date nor commonly available
>> unless you're system administrator and deliberately configure your system against the default.

>Yes. Mailman strips of the alternative text/html (which is useless and often
>dangerous) part and leaves the text/plain in no matter if it's in utf-8, koi8-r,
>iso-8859-* or us-ascii (usually), and if it's quoted-printable, base64 or whatnot.

Fine. Why not converting it to UTF8 or ASCII at teh same time? Then it's really plain.

>> Count how many people are doing plain tex tposting in this group. You and me and who else?
>> The rest is using mime-encoded, double-mime-encoded, Base64 encoding and others.

>So?  The point is not letting random screenshots, excess HTML markup garbage
>from old Microsoft-weds-Office-to-the-Web style software that doesn't convey
>information but formats every word in an explicit font (I take it this got fixed
>in later versions of the software I have in mind), and random other attachments.

Well, you're right (especially with this specific software) But then again, where to stop?
Personally, I'd be happy if the texts weren't in mime multipart/alternative blocks but just plain.
But I can live with those mails which do. And didn't complain in the past.

But this is really going much too far. I never intended to start something that more and more
goes into the direction of a flamewar.
Nor did I want to be told that I have to change my mail client, OS, computer, work, 
name, religion or whatever.
I just wanted to state (originally) that the proposed changes, as 'obvious' or desireable they
might look at first, might (will) have some side-effects that are neiterh obvious nor desireable.

If you or whoever decides it wants to go that way, fine. I can live with (or without) it.
And to the relief of the rest of the list, we should either stop or continue directly (but I don't see any
point in the second alternative)

JMGross

On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:51 AM, JMGross wrote:
> Well, there's no godly rule that a list must have a website nor does everyone subscribe
> to a list through a web interface.
> And there's no general rule what the name of a website has to be if it belongs to a list.

New subscribers to this list receive an email with instructions for posting to the list, changing their settings, and unsubscribing from the list. Also, every message posted to the list has a link to the list's web page appended to the bottom. Finally, there's an automatic monthly password reminder email telling subscribers how to log in to change their settings; it's on by default, unless the user manually turns it off.

This isn't rocket surgery.

-- 
Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x@...>
Web page: http://www.nf6x.net/
GnuPG public key available from my web page.

Am 30.11.2010 20:51, schrieb JMGross:
> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
> Von: M. Andree
> Gesendet am: 30 Nov 2010 18:14:39
> 
>>> Interesting. How does one know this if he's not the list maintainer?
> 
>> Read the list websites perhaps?
> 
> Well, there's no godly rule that a list must have a website nor does everyone subscribe
> to a list through a web interface.

You *could*, theoretically, find the link in the footer of each and every mail
that passed through the list driver... it's not that hard if you just open your
eyes (talking about a narrow view of others later :-)).  Quote at the very end.

> This is not a mailing list about mailing lists for mailing list administration experts.
> It is a list for mspgcc users, and neither mspgcc nor users implies special or even
> general knowledge of what you think what is 'usual' for mailing lists.

I find that there is a common lowest denominator on mailing lists -- pretty
universal.

> Also, not knowing that something (that is not 'common' for 'everyone') is possible
> implies that one does not actively search for it.
> 
> The list is/was working so why searching the web or reading manuals
> Simply turning away is the easier choice. And saves much time.
> And cannot be desireable.

That depends on how burdensome the contributions are that you're waiving.

Mailman does quite a good job at separating the chaff from the wheat an at
providing two easy interfaces, the web for noobs, and mail for the traditionalists.

>> My webmailers run off an IMAP server, no big deal here.
> 
> With the most important word written last.
> That something is working for you does not mean that it is the global revelation for everyone.

I know. Web mailers aren't the revelation either, but I consider even the better
of them a stopgap measure, a surrogate for real tools, to be used if your usual
working environment is unavailable.

> Sure. As sure as the term 'common mailing list conventions' can be questioned.
> 'Sourceforge list conventions' or 'mailman based list conventions' or whatever, well, maybe.
> But definitely not 'common'.

No, common.  Some are even IETF standards or best current practices.  If that
isn't "common", then what is?  At any rate it's not specific to Mailman or
SourceForge.net.

I've seen so many diverse lists, and there are quite a few commonalities.

> Once more, you think just because things aren't working for others like they do for you means
> that they use the wrong tools and have to change.

No, I see the result, and that is disrupted threads.  I don't care why that is
or how you fix it, but I would really appreciate if you did.

What I proposed is a simple solution that works on lots of computers, is easy to
use and set up yet powerful and extensible and behaves quite well (apart from
the "send HTML" default).

> if Thunderbird is the only mail client that 'does it right' in your opinion, so maybe it's your opinion that's wrong.

There are sufficient others (including free and open source, including
lightweight and portable), but yours isn't one of them.

> That one or two clients implement features which are niche doesn't make them any standard nor is it a reason
> to discriminate everything and everyone who does not use them.

No, but I need not remain silent if other people get in the way of efficient
communication for many other list participants.

> if you want your world exactly as you think it has to be, then close your eyes and mouth and be happy
> with yourself. Or accept that the world isn't as you think it should be. And that not everyone will agree to
> what you think.

I don't require that everyone agrees, but I don't need to invite people whose
chosen tools are disruptive.

>> Mutt gets threading right, if that's low-footprint.
> 
> What's 'right'? That some mail client has introduced a more clever way to do threading than scanning the subject
> is fine, but does not mean that everything else is wrong.

There are standard mail headers for that purpose. See RFC5322 and other
pertinent Internet standards.  There are there for a reason.  Else I might start
labelling my Subject: header Gegenstand: and format my E-Mail Adress in a way
that is legal in the terms of this standard but would jeopardize not just your
mailer's address parsing...

> I also fought windmills in the past about how things should be. And I've seen many clever ideas failing agains 
> the less clever but more common (or better pushed) competitors. And I calmed down over the years.
> Maybr you'll arrive at this point somewhen - If you didn't get an heart attack before.

I'm not upset if that's your concern.  I just strongly resist the notion that
the odd one out is asking that the world play by his rules, if the world has set
its own (as listed above).

> The two border-situations are clear: all interested users as well as any fly-by spammer or 
> no spammers, no effort, no tiem to spend but also no users. Both not desireable. Where to put the border?
> "the optimum tax rate is between 0 and 100%" 
> Sounds obvoius at first, but on the second thought it has more than one deeper truth.

True 'nuff, but not applicable, because there isn't a public purpose to a
particular mailing list.

> [about challenging list posters]
>>> So you want to punish people because their provider uses a system you don't like?
>>This isn't about punishing, but about adhering to decade-old conventions.
>>Automated replies to list postings, to my personal address, are considered undue
>>harrassment, a breach of conventions, and I consider that spamming.
> 
> To the first part I agree. To the last, partly.
> Yet spamming is a problem anyway. Once more the question is where to put the border
> between fighting spam and producing one through the fight against it.
> Anyway, often people cannot do anythign against it except searching for another service.
> Do they? Well, facebook still exists, so the obvious answer is: no. :)

You're trying to mix concepts that don't mix.  facebook isn't a mailing list.

>>And consider the scare it gives if you are the on-the-fly "supporter" from your
>>scenario and get a dozen challenges back.  This mustn't happen, it drives
>>(again, scares) far more people away.
> 
> Well, if they are really only on-the-fly-supporters, then they did their work before getting the 'spam'

No, see it from another vantage point then you'll understand why I'm so strongly
opposed:

Fly-By-Supporter sends to List. List sends to 100 users.
By next summer, 10 of these 100 users are using challenge-response-antispam
"solutions" and send "oh sorry to harrass you but to confirm you're not a
spammer, please reply to foo-tag@...". 3 are right, go to the
list driver which bounces them back, or ultimately unsubscribes the user.
3 other of the 10 require that the correspondence partner takes a Turing test or
jumps through other hoops.

Do you really think this is reasonable?  For 1 post you get 10 back that are
asking you to do things?  I find it not only unreasonable, but a danger to the
public, because it allows multiplying bandwidth (=> distributed denial of
service attack vector), and therefore unacceptable.

> We're talking about MSP developers. An MSP does not have enough memory to hold a typical linux makefile.
> And has NOTHING to do with mailign list adminstration or common computer knowledge at all.
> In many cases it does nto even mean that there are any programming skills above elementary school.

Yes. So I chose not to support those in my spare time.

>>Yes. Mailman strips of the alternative text/html (which is useless and often
>>dangerous) part and leaves the text/plain in no matter if it's in utf-8, koi8-r,
>>iso-8859-* or us-ascii (usually), and if it's quoted-printable, base64 or whatnot.
> 
> Fine. Why not converting it to UTF8 or ASCII at teh same time? Then it's really plain.

Which is missing the point when talking about attachments.

> I just wanted to state (originally) that the proposed changes, as 'obvious' or desireable they
> might look at first, might (will) have some side-effects that are neiterh obvious nor desireable.

All changes will have side-effects, desirable or not.  I don't see how these
will affect the list community as adversely as you've adumbrated your concerns.

> If you or whoever decides it wants to go that way, fine. I can live with (or without) it.

If I were to decide that I wouldn't even be discussing it, but just setting the
rules and tell people to come back if that poses *unsurmountable* problems.
I've never seen that happen.

BTW, in breach of conventions I am quoting the footer for the sake of showing
you where you could've looked for the list options:

> _______________________________________________
> Mspgcc-users mailing list
> Mspgcc-users@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users

:)