On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:47:39 -0700 (MST)
Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: J C Lawrence <claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu>
While that may be what you intend to do, that is not apparent from
your actions, and even more so, that is not implied by the
information you reveal should you post to that list. This is simple
information theory stuff.
"Information theory stuff" is stuff and nonsense in this context.
I'll disagree as I find it critical to the accurate definition and
design of protocols.
If you want to talk about Shannon's work and so forth, we could, but
such talk would have nothing to do with the charter of this mailing
list or this digression.
I don't see the discussion of IF as on-topic for this list, but its
applications to the topics of this list most certainly are.
In the general case when you post to the forum you reveal yourself,
willy nilly, to all the members of that forum at that time, and (very
likely) everybody who may every find or discover that forum for the
rest of time (archives and associative bleed being what they are).
Those are the explicit audiences to whom you've provided your contact
data. If that doesn't describe what you want to do, then DON'T DO
THAT. Attempting to retroactively assign riders or etiquette
contracts regarding your provided data is unlikely to work. ...
That position is indistinguishable from spammers who claim that
publishing an address is tantamount to soliciting anything they care
to send you, until you opt-out, and that any future publication of
your contact information is a new request to be spammed back to the
19th Century.
True, and that's part of my point. I may not like or agree with the
view, and its certainly not one I practice, but their logic is sound.
The only difference between the two positions are arbitrary OOB value
decisions that are not demonstrated by the data in any fashion. More
simply, wouldn't a system which does state (or enforce) the expectations
of the poster be better than the current please-guess-nicely approach?
We already know that we are dealing with people who are not operating on
the same social assumptions and mores as we, and that we have no direct
method of either communicating our expectations in a manner such that
they'll be honored, or in making them use our data in the manner we
wish. It seems inescapable that the appropriate response is to provide
data which only operates within the expectations/contracts we desire.
Please note that I am not saying you are a spammer, but only that
those words express perfectly the position of spammers that they have
the right to spam you if you don't hide your address.
Thanks. I get enough of that as a list operator.
I think subscribing or contributing to a mailing list amounts to
nothing more than subscribing or contributing to a mailing list. In
the absense of explicit agreement to the contrary, subscribing to a
mailing list does not solicit any mail from anyone except from that
mailing list.
I was careful in my original text to distinguish between joining a list
and posting to a list. The former case I firmly believe to be a
properly protected state (and is something I'm very careful of on my
lists due to a number of situations where the simple fact that someone
is subscribed is uncomfortably revealing). The latter (posting) is far
less clear without applying cultural arbitraries as discussed above.
It is reasonable for a stranger to assume that you at least tolerate
non-bulk, polite, private messages on any topic that the sender
reasonably believes interests you. That the sender infers your
interest from a web page, netnews article, mailing list submission,
business card, roadside sign, or mental telepathy is irrelevant.
Submitting something to a mailing list does not grant anyone any right
to send you mail that they would not already have without your
submission.
Aye, there's the social corollary to the protocol rule of, 'Be
conservative in what you emit and generous in what you accept', to the
end of, "Post messages which others can experience easily, and be
willing to experience any message." However, I see that as a tangent to
tool-building for a solution.
Note: Such an approach makes it difficult to fork a thread off-list.
There are cases where the only discussions that are possible are
public because there is insufficient mutual regard for private
discussions. Despite such problems, public discussions can be
fruitful.
<nod>
Public statements do not obligate you to private discussions with
anyone.
No, but it is easy (if not valid) to assume a social structure which
defines that a participant in public discussion may be reasonably
approached for private discussion.
In yet other words, are you really advocating the notion that I must
receive bulk noise about keys because I've subscribed to this mailing
list? If so, what about urgent messages about escrow accounts in
Nigeria?
Social etiquette versus technical contract. Teaching manners, let alone
cultural models and expectations is not easy as it assumes a context
which is frequently not present. Don't enforce your mores on a group
to which they don't apply.
BTW: On that score don't expect me to stop ranting against top
posting, or to allow it on any of my lists. I pick limits on where I
live up to what I write.
Geeks, and this encludes me, tend to readily compartmentalise their
lives and interests. Thus they view their behaviour and activities on
List-X as distinct and effectively unrelated to their behaviour and
activities on List-Y, and they in turn deconstruct and compartmentalise
the social expectations and mores which relate to those sub-divisions in
the same way. Problem is that the majority of the rest of humanity
doesn't tend to work that way. Hang out on some non0-technical lists on
Yahoo or Topica for a while. Right or wrong (I'd argue that is a style
point) they take a much more whole-person approach wherein a person's
participation on the list is holistic, and involved more or less all of
that individual, warts, off-topic oddities, and all. As such game lists
have regular discussions on baby diaper selection, teen-pop idol bra cup
size, IRS legitimacy urban legends, and fauz virus warnings.
However, this is getting way off topic.
Problem. Definition. Solution. Implementation.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg