tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 02 19:26:48 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: This is [****]
ja' charghwI':
>All of these arguments ignore that it is quite possible to have
>a "reply to:" address that doesn't match what the mailing list
>expects for you, so following the procedure for unsubscribing
>simply doesn't work because the automated manager of the
>mailing list does not recognize the person asking to
>unsubscribe as being a member of the list.
Sure, sometimes the automated process doesn't work. But you're missing
the larger point completely. There is a published procedure to follow
when the automated process doesn't work -- you yourself used it once.
Thus we didn't have to get mad at you for cluttering the mailing list
with your request, because you *didn*'t clutter the mailing list. The
automated mailing list maintenance system broke down for you, but the
larger "meta-system" with a person at the controls allowed you to get
the situation resolved without annoying the list subscribers.
I don't fault people for having email systems that mangle their names
in such a way that the list server software won't recognize them. But
I do fault them for turning immediately to the mailing list instead of
the list administrator.
>Automation of this is
>a great idea, except when it fails and then people get rude to
>you and act like you are an idiot because THEIR automated system
>failed.
When the automated system breaks down for someone and they take their
complaints to a public forum without using the well-documented process
for dealing with the breakdown, THEY are the ones being rude.
>It's like cursing out someone on the phone because they called
>you and then they won't identify themselves when really the
>phone system is failing and they can hear you but you can't hear
>them. Sometimes systems fail. Don't always blame it on the
>people.
Are you proposing that when someone posts "TAKE ME OFF THE [$#@%] LIST",
we shouldn't assume that they didn't read the instructions? I hope not.