Fellow mongrelians, forgive a slightly off-topic rant; my hope is that it can lead to a better world. In the past few months, I have seen an increase in "anonymous" questions on this list, "anonymous" in the sense that the sender names do not resemble real human names, and also in the sense that the messages have not been signed. Just today, we have seen "Geek Moth <geekmoth at gmail>" and "gmail < neongrau at gmail>", neither of whom signed their questions.[1] In the past months, there have been many more. Of course, each individual may have good reason not to disclose his or her name and affiliation, but they don''t say so. And frankly, I''m not terribly inclined to help someone who doesn''t introduce himself and doesn''t greet me or say goodbye at the end of his message. In fact, unless you all tell me that I''m a sour old git, I will not answer anonymous pleas for help in the future.[2] It might be that my reaction is more anti-social than their lack of manners (as I perceive it), but at least I''m not making people cranky by shutting up. My ceasing to answer anonymous questions won''t lead to a huge dip in the traffic on this list, of course, but perhaps others have already reacted in the same way, and we are missing a lot of good traffic already. What do you think? Best regards, /David [1] I don''t feel that I''m pointing fingers here, because I can''t see whom I am pointing at. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20071107/7cb8f17b/attachment.html
On Nov 7, 2007, at 9:14 AM, David Vrensk wrote:> My ceasing to answer anonymous questions won''t lead to a huge dip > in the > traffic on this list, of course, but perhaps others have already > reacted in > the same way, and we are missing a lot of good traffic already. > What do you > think?I think that SMTP makes absolutely no guarantee that I am actually Nathan Vack <njvack at wisc.edu>, nor that you are actually David Vrensk <david at vrensk.com>. All unsigned email is fundamentally unverified and should be treated as though it''s essentially anonymous. It''s all good and nice to put in a real name in your email client... but how would anyone know if you''re lying? Cheers, -Nate...?
On Nov 7, 2007, at 9:14 AM, David Vrensk wrote:> [1] I don''t feel that I''m pointing fingers here, because I can''t > see whom I am pointing at.See? I can change two lines in my email client and I''m you! (Note: this is HORRIBLE MANNERS... but essential to remember. Also, you can usually examine the mail headers to see where a message was sent from, though this has its own shortcomings...) Anyhow, my offtopic diversion is now over, and I''ll go back to being me before I accidentally answer mail as David ;-) My take: don''t sweat the anonymous questions. Cheers, -Nate...?
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:47:50 -0600 Nathan Vack <njvack at wisc.edu> wrote:> I think that SMTP makes absolutely no guarantee that I am actually > Nathan Vack <njvack at wisc.edu>, nor that you are actually David Vrensk > <david at vrensk.com>. All unsigned email is fundamentally unverified > and should be treated as though it''s essentially anonymous. > > It''s all good and nice to put in a real name in your email client... > but how would anyone know if you''re lying?Yep, and most of the anonymous questions are good questions without any astroturfing or trolling. Be thankful this isn''t the many other ruby lists where the problem is combined with griefers. Now if I can just get back to working on Utu. -- Zed A. Shaw - Hate: http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/ - Good: http://www.zedshaw.com/ - Evil: http://yearofevil.com/