Mailing-List: contact ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-users@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <40914.151.25.10.134.1333299670.squirrel@nexaima.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F78692C.9030707@scottsonline.org.uk>
References: <003001cd0f8f$bad89af0$3089d0d0$@acm.org>
    <4F780499.6060606@scottsonline.org.uk>
    <42632.151.25.10.134.1333286568.squirrel@nexaima.net>
    <4F78692C.9030707@scottsonline.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 19:01:10 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: A moderator's view of this list [was: Re: I Hate Your Product]
From: "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti@nexaima.net>
To: ooo-users@incubator.apache.org
Reply-To: mfioretti@nexaima.net
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-5.el4.centos.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, April 1, 2012 4:41 pm, Mike Scott wrote:

> Actually, while I remember a disagreement, I'm not sure myself of the
> details. I think it might have been about using some sort of engine to
> guess a likely answer to unsubscribed queries - I vaguely seem to recal=
l
> you didn't approve:

Yes, now I remember, thanks. I stepped in because you suggested a bayesia=
n
autoresponder, and I explained why in my opinion it wouldn't work in this
case. But it was a purely technical disagreement, nothing personal. Heck,
I was so happy to have found somebody else that didn't want to "send agai=
n
to unsubscribed user"!. Anyway, it's all in the thread I posted yesterday=
.

 apologies if my memory is wrong.
>
> On that latter point, do I understand correctly that the basis of your
> approach is to track incoming unsubbed emails, and automatically copy
> corresponding list responses to their originators, so removing the
> subbed/unsubbed issue entirely? Response would still be from a person,
> but they'd not have to worry that the originator might not receive the
> reply.

correct. The way I propose to recognize unsubscribed users is the ONLY on=
e
that can work because, running on the same server as the mailing list
software, can do it in the right way: checking if the sender address is i=
n
the list of subscribers :-)

Then it sends copy of all and only the list replies to that message to
that sender address. Details in the thread I posted yesterday, there's no
need I type the whole thing again.


> plus carefully worded information about subscribing and
> the benefits (and otherwise) of doing that. One might mix both approach=
es

Bayesian filters cannot work in this case because they assume that the
sender knows what he's talking about. And it's not needed at all, if the
sender receives answers from real humans anyway. But of course the copy
automatically sent by the autoresponder can and should have added the
extra info you describe.

Marco


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ooo-users-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org