Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 049BE98E5 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:42:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 28560 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2012 14:42:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-users-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 28533 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2012 14:42:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-users@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-users@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 28524 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2012 14:42:19 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:42:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [87.194.255.145] (HELO woodbine.london.02.net) (87.194.255.145) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:42:11 +0000 Received: from scottsonline.org.uk (78.105.254.41) by woodbine.london.02.net (8.5.140) id 4F70C6670024B206 for ooo-users@incubator.apache.org; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:41:49 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (picard.scotts [192.168.0.2]) by scottsonline.org.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q31Efmcv044973 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:41:48 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mike@scottsonline.org.uk) Message-ID: <4F78692C.9030707@scottsonline.org.uk> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:41:48 +0100 From: Mike Scott User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ooo-users@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A moderator's view of this list [was: Re: I Hate Your Product] References: <003001cd0f8f$bad89af0$3089d0d0$@acm.org> <4F780499.6060606@scottsonline.org.uk> <42632.151.25.10.134.1333286568.squirrel@nexaima.net> In-Reply-To: <42632.151.25.10.134.1333286568.squirrel@nexaima.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 192.168.0.1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 01/04/12 14:22, M. Fioretti wrote: > > On Sun, April 1, 2012 9:32 am, Mike Scott wrote: > >> Marco and I don't agree on the "right" way > > Mike, > I confess I forgot what is exactly that we disagree about. > > Marco > 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 recall you didn't approve: 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. My thought was that unsubbed emails could be redirected to an autoresponder, which would analyse the email and send a likely answer (if possible) plus carefully worded information about subscribing and the benefits (and otherwise) of doing that. One might mix both approaches. -- Mike Scott Harlow, Essex, England --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ooo-users-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org