[chbot] Mailing list operation was: Test message.

[Mark Atherton]

Mike,

Thank you.

Yet again: A polite, and common-sense observation.

-mark

At 01:20 p.m. 19/11/2014, you wrote:
>Once again, I am far more pragmatic. I can't enforce my will on 
>others to do what they do or don't want to do, no matter how well 
>reasoned or logical my argument may be. I have to accept that once 
>in a while somebody might want to test that they can still receive 
>email from the list. I can ask them not to do so, but it isn't worth 
>fighting to the death (of either them or the quality of the emails 
>in the list).
>
>I am however in control of things my own little universe. Here is my 
>resolution to the problem of test emails:
>
>1. I consider if the amount of drivel I end up wasting time reading 
>is enough to make me blacklist any of the senders as them being a 
>person I just don't want to hear from again, as they never add 
>anything of value without it being wrapped up in a ton of crap.
>
>2. I consider adding a rule that if the Subject is "Test" or 
>contains the phrase "Mailing list operation was: Test message" then 
>send the message to my junk email folder, with the bonus that it 
>will work over all my email lists.
>
>In this case I chose the later. Problem solved for me. I can move 
>on. May I suggest everybody else who takes offence at test messages does too?
>
>Mike
>
>PS. Can we all be sure not to change the subject line for this 
>conversation? It might break my mail filter and I might end up 
>wasting time reading emails I don't want to receive :-)
>
>On 18.11.2014 19:33, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
>>
>>On Tue 18 Nov 2014 07:42:45 NZDT +1300, Richard Jones wrote:
>>>Are you arguing against test driven development?
>>
>>Mailing list membership is not development.
>>"Test-driven" implies probing unknown territory, doing it for areas you
>>can just read up in the manual leaves the approach looking not so smart.
>>>Or re-observing that hindsight is an exact science?
>>
>>No. It is knowledge accumulated in 20+ years of active mailing list
>>membership, and I'm happy to share. I'm a bit annoyed it has got lost,
>>it is the age of SMS (attention span limit: 160 characters) and
>>Faceplant(TM) (just click-me, no knowledge required, and the advertising
>>and surveillance industries love the ignorant).
>>>Maybe it is time to formulate some rules / guidelines regarding 
>>>posts to our email reflector?
>>
>>I personally wouldn't think that to be worthwhile. Many mailing lists do
>>have one but they all tend to be very similar, and often
>>self-explanatory. Just link to a few :-) They all say "no test messages
>>to test your own email" though. Questions are encouraged, asking before
>>RTFM just because it's lazier is not.
>>>I'm quite happy to receive and respond to the odd test message if 
>>>someone has a problem.
>>
>>Asking about problems is what the lists are for. My point was that test
>>messages are never necessary, and I used it as an opportunity to point
>>out "how things work".
>>
>>Mark, nice link, but on the Internet you can always find someone
>>supporting your position. That person doesn't look old enough to have
>>grown up with it. And it's called "mailman" the "mailing list manager"
>>(read the footer again) because it's a reflector, right? A mirror would
>>be a reflector, a mailing list manager would perhaps be a
>>duplicator/auto-forwarder. It would be a reflector if you got your own
>>posting back, which, as noted, isn't default setting.
>>
>>Now I'll go back to project work... ;-)
>>
>>Volker
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Chchrobotics mailing list Chchrobotics at lists.linuxnut.co.nz
>http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/chchrobotics
>Mail Archives: http://lists.ourshack.com/pipermail/chchrobotics/
>Web site: http://kiwibots.org
>Meetings 3rd Monday each month.
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line to reflect new content.