[PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 6, Issue 14
plug_0 at robinson-west.com
plug_0 at robinson-west.com
Thu Mar 24 02:31:10 UTC 2005
Quoting plug-talk-request at lists.pdxlinux.org:
> Send PLUG-talk mailing list submissions to
> plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> plug-talk-request at lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> plug-talk-owner at lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of PLUG-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Don't use MyPCC... (Russ Johnson)
> 2. Re: PLUG-talk and other Filters? (GLL)
> 3. Re: Re: PLUG-talk and other Filters? (Rich Shepard)
> 4. Re: Re: PLUG-talk and other Filters? (Russell Senior)
> 5. Re: Re: PLUG-talk and other Filters? (Russell Senior)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:19:45 -0800
> From: Russ Johnson <russj at dimstar.net>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Don't use MyPCC...
> To: Random clatter and time wasting chat
> <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
> Message-ID: <423B45F1.7000001 at dimstar.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> plug_0 at robinson-west.com wrote:
>
> >Okay Mr. Completely missed the point, MyPCC is
> >used for getting classes etc.
> >
> Yes, and why do you care what crap gets sent to it?
>
> As long as you have an official email address, any other email addresses
> you have issued to you are irrelevant.
>
> Email is not that important. It's not secure. It can very easily be
> spoofed.
>
> If you do care (again, why?) forward it to your regular account where
> you can have spamassassin take care of any spam.
>
> If you forward it to your robinson-west email account, you can set up
> procmail to /dev/null anything not from pcc.edu. Isn't that what you
> want? Wasn't that simple?
>
> Now, in the future, you might consider asking this question like this:
>
> "I have an email account that I didn't ask for, but that I can't get rid
> of. I'd like to accept email from the one relevant domain but send
> anything else to the bit bucket. I can't do it on that system. How would
> I do this?"
>
> Much simpler, and leaves out ALL the crap.
>
> So... forward your pcc email account to your regular mail server, and
> have procmail sort it out for you.
>
> Russ
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:13:47 -0800
> From: GLL <guy1656 at ados.com>
> Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk and other Filters?
> To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
> Message-ID: <200503181513.47603.guy1656 at ados.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> : > GLL> I wouldn't mind at all if an automated system simply bounced all
> : > GLL> "family radio-unfriendly" words. I really don't think we'd lose
> : > GLL> that much - what would we lose that was truly necessary?
> : >
> : > The beautiful thing here is that *you* can moderate with your *own*
> : > filter. That lets you adapt it precisely to your own sensitivities.
>
> I don't think that technology exists yet. (See below.)
>
> : > You don't have to rely on everyone sharing them. Nor do you have to
> : > convince everyone else to share them. The power is in your hands to
> : > solve your own problem.
>
> If I an reading you correctly, you're saying "if you don't like it the way it
>
> is now, just unsubscribe/turn it off." That's giving up on the problem, not
> really solving the problem.
>
> The other, effective option is only naiscent: Google is already offering to
> 'translate this page.' I guess it will take another three or four
> generations of computing and software evolution, but if it's everybody's OWN
>
> onus, then it would be neat to have software each one of us users could
> easily tune, so as to bawdlerize the world of communication to fit each of
> our preferred modes of discourse. You might also have dialect re-processors
> and even grammar and spelling correctors on the front-ends, or inputs rather
>
> than our current selection of spell-checkers, which operate on (impending)
> outputs.
>
> An intriguing effect of tools like these would be that unless people
> regularly
> used a tool allegorical to "View Source," no writer would be exaclty sure how
>
> his works were being read. As an example, in the previous sentence I allowed
>
> the masculing gender to subsume the feminine, which to me is not a sexist
> affront, it's merely correct grammar, and the rest of the world just has to
> deal with the fact that I think and write in Standard English. But some other
>
> recipient may have an 'inclusive language' re-translator to adjust to his own
>
> sensitivities.
>
> The net effect would be even less common culture between one stranger and the
>
> next. For example, as we move from watching 'The NEWS' on three VHF channels
>
> in the 60's and 70's to cable TV,** to reading blogs more and MSM less, we
> are all tuning and refining the filters on our world of inputs to more
> exactly match the preferred hues of our own rose-colored glasses.
>
> Just like Windoze "themes," could we eventually 'edit' streaming TV
> programming on the fly? How about an ante-bellum 'theme' we could apply to
> all our TV shows at once - changing all the costumes and even dialects on the
>
> fly? Could we turn 'Enterprise' into a sod-buster? Could 'hip-hop' be a
> theme? Let's apply it to 'The Beverly Hillbillies.' {BSOD!}
>
> :-D
>
> - GLL
>
> ** I remember a new age of freedom, when THE PRESIDENT would come on TV, and
>
> you actually COULD turn the dial past enough channels to make him GO AWAY.
> What a feeling! You could 'escape.'
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Where Speed & Service Have Always Mattered @ http://www.ados.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:31:54 -0800 (PST)
> From: Rich Shepard <rshepard at appl-ecosys.com>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk and other Filters?
> To: plug-talk at pdxlinux.org
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503181630190.5440 at salmo.appl-ecosys.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, GLL wrote:
>
> > If I an reading you correctly, you're saying "if you don't like it the way
> > it is now, just unsubscribe/turn it off." That's giving up on the problem,
> > not really solving the problem.
>
> Hmmm-m-m. I guess I missed something in the original. I interpreted
> Russell's suggestion as using the 'd' key to delete those messages you don't
> want to read. In my experience that does the job I want it to do without
> imposing my views or standards on anyone else.
>
> Rich
>
> --
> Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President
> Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM)
> <http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: 18 Mar 2005 18:28:28 -0800
> From: Russell Senior <seniorr at aracnet.com>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk and other Filters?
> To: Random clatter and time wasting chat
> <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
> Message-ID: <86acp08j3n.fsf at coulee.tdb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-5
>
>
> GLL> I wouldn't mind at all if an automated system simply bounced all
> GLL> "family radio-unfriendly" words. I really don't think we'd lose
> GLL> that much - what would we lose that was truly necessary?
>
> Russell> The beautiful thing here is that *you* can moderate with your
> Russell> *own* filter. That lets you adapt it precisely to your own
> Russell> sensitivities.
>
> GLL> I don't think that technology exists yet. (See below.)
>
> Russell> You don't have to rely on everyone sharing them. Nor do you
> Russell> have to convince everyone else to share them. The power is in
> Russell> your hands to solve your own problem.
>
> GLL> If I an reading you correctly, you're saying "if you don't like
> GLL> it the way it is now, just unsubscribe/turn it off." That's
> GLL> giving up on the problem, not really solving the problem.
>
> Your proposed solution to your problem is for the mailing list itself
> to reject messages based on presence of certain words. Or maybe
> you're suggesting just filtering out the offensive words themselves.
> Either way, a procmail recipe can do the same thing with your own list
> of words. This is not new technology. Procmail has been around for
> more than a decade. Whatever a machine can do on the mailing list
> server, it can also do on your mail receiving machine. Do it if it
> will make you happy. Or, alternatively, convince an overwhelming
> majority to adopt your particular sensitivities. The former seems
> like a more pragmatic approach.
>
>
> --
> Russell Senior ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
> seniorr at aracnet.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: 19 Mar 2005 04:26:18 -0800
> From: Russell Senior <seniorr at aracnet.com>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk and other Filters?
> To: Random clatter and time wasting chat
> <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
> Message-ID: <8664zn95zp.fsf at coulee.tdb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> >>>>> "Russell" == Russell Senior <seniorr at aracnet.com> writes:
>
> Russell> [...] Either way, a procmail recipe can do the same thing
> Russell> with your own list of words. This is not new technology.
> Russell> Procmail has been around for more than a decade.
>
> I wondered just how old procmail was. I checked. Its version 1.00
> dates from Dec 07 1990.
>
>
> --
> Russell Senior ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
> seniorr at aracnet.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
>
>
> End of PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 6, Issue 14
> ****************************************
>
Fine Russ, how do I program procmail to do this?
I agree with GLL, you are all ignoring the problem.
This is not about offensive words, it's about
clear cut discrimination. Purposely writing a
reply with the intent to anger someone else on
a public mailing list is demeaning. The
negative community impact this can have can
be very discouraging. Sure, I can clean up,
if I know how, the spool as I receive it. Thing
is, the point of mailing lists is being in
contact with many people at once in a public
way. If mailing list subscribers aren't
discouraged from blatant derogatory statements,
bickering so to speak, just how attractive is
their list going to be in the long run to the
average joe? Linux is easier when you can work
with other people. I consider the petty attacks
immature and self centered, selfishness is never
complimentary to cooperation and collaboration.
The failure of the moderator to moderate personal
attacks is not encouraging. Even less encouraging
is the failure of some individuals on plug and
plug-talk to moderate themselves.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list