From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12897 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2006 12:47:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 12885 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2006 12:47:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:47:06 +0000 Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:47:01 +0100 Received: from rainbow ([192.168.1.165]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:46:58 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: , "'awwww pooor ickul gary boo-hoo sob sob'" Subject: RE: Arbitraily Banning Maintainers From Mailing Lists Which They Need To Perform Their Duties Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: <018401c66478$84eb63f0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <000701c66475$84043fa0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 On 20 April 2006 13:26, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > [Follow-ups set to cygwin@, since the arbitrary banning of maintainers, or "Arbitrary" is not an accurate description of a ban that was done for a clearly-defined reason. Gary, you could have TITTTL'd the thread but you just *had* to have the last word. It's your own dumbass fault. Stop whining and take your medicine like a man. > Let me see if I have the order of events straight here: Undoubtedly not. > 1. You reply to one of my posts on cygwin-apps@ suggesting that the thread > be moved to a more appropriate list > [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00109.html]. You however > neglect to change the followups accordingly [ibid., "Reply-to: cygwin-apps > at cygwin dot com"]. > > 2. I reply to your reply > [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00112.html], but take care to > in fact set the followups properly, so that the thread will indeed get moved > to the more-appropriate list, i.e. cygwin-talk@ [ibid., "Reply-to: > "]. Like I say, you did that because you wanted to have the last word. There is no need to post a reply just to set the followup headers which after all - and this is the crucial point here - ONLY APPLY TO THAT ONE POST ANYWAY. IOW, you added a superfluous post to the thread for the purported purpose of setting the follow-up header of that very same - superfluous - post so that any replies to the superfluous post will go to the right place. This has no effect on any other post in the thread or any replies to any other post in the thread. That's why the notion that you were somehow obliged to add just one more post to the thread is specious nonsense and I fall back on the far more likely theory that you wanted to self-aggrandize. QED. > 3. You then reply to that reply - but not in the cygwin-talk@ list which I > had redirected the thread to. Rather, you bring the thread /back/ into > cygwin-apps@, only to inform me that you are /banning/ me from that mailing > list [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00113.html] for doing the > very thing YOU should have done in the previous message! Furthermore, you > have also changed the followups of the thread /back/ to cygwin-apps@ [ibid., > "Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com"]! However you count it, you were always one jump behind. Once a post has gone out from a list maintainer saying "This thread is offtopic for this list", there's no need to add another post to the thread. Full stop. > Wow. I have to admit, I'm having an especially hard time getting my mind > around #3 there. Well, just try and grasp the fact that causality only ever operates *forwards* in time, and it should be simpler to understand. Oh, and try and also grasp that the "Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps" header is added by default to *EVERY* post to the list, because list netiquette is that replies should go to the list, not to individuals. Seeing the header in someone's post means that they have *NOT* set any followup-to at all, not that they have deliberately set it *to* the list. Look up the word "default" in any good dictionary for more info. > What sort of thought process sees me redirecting a thread > to a more appropriate venue, You weren't "redirecting a thread to a more appropriate venue". The main part of that thread, about the proposed X repackaging, needed to remain on the apps list where it was. The off-topic stuff needed to be TITTTL'd or just dropped, pronto. You posted again because you wanted to have the last word. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....