Open message to list moderator

Open message to list moderator

[Phil Endecott]

Dear Moderator,

You have just rejected a message that I sent on Sunday.  This message 
provided background information to the patch that I sent at about the 
same time (and which was accepted).

I sent this patch in a spirit of open-source co-operation.  It fixes a 
bug, but it isn't one that was affecting me.  I just happened to notice 
it and thought I'd try to help others by sending a patch.  I wasn't 
expecting to win an award for this, but I certainly wasn't expecting to 
receive this lecture:

Quote:
   Your request to the linux-mtd mailing list
   Posting of your message titled "Re: [PATCH] Fix kfree usage in
   various mtd map remove functions"
   has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
   following reason for rejecting your request:
   "Your message contain a reference "Re:" in subject but does not
   contain (Reference:, or In-reply-to:, or both) in the header. Please,
   don't do like this. This breaks the mailing list messages threading.
   Either reply or start a new thread. And please, glance at
   http://david.woodhou.se/email.html, this is highlighted there.
   Thanks."
   Any questions or comments should be directed to the list 
administrator at:
   linux-mtd-owner@lists.infradead.org
End Quote.

Based on the delay and the wording, I take it that human intervention 
was involved in the production of this message.

For your information, the headers were missing because I was replying 
to a message that I had sent myself, and my mailer gets confused when I 
do that.  (I wrote my own mailer.  It's called Decimail and it's 
open-source.  It does lots of cool things, but it's not perfect.)

Now, you have lost the explanation for the patch and have annoyed me 
enough that I am unlikely to go out of my way to fix any further 
problems that I spot in your code.  Was this really worth it just for a 
missing header?

I invite other list subscribers to express their opinions.


Phil.

Re: Open message to list moderator

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 23:30 +0100, Phil Endecott wrote:
> Based on the delay and the wording, I take it that human intervention 
> was involved in the production of this message.

Yes. That will have been Artem; when I moderate the list myself I tend
to look into the _reasons_ why the rules were broken and I'm often more
lenient. Sequences of '[PATCH 1/2]' '[PATCH 2/2]', for example, _should_
be sent as a thread, but would get trapped for moderation -- and
approved. 

Artem _also_ seems to let things through occasionally but I've never
seen a pattern to it.

> For your information, the headers were missing because I was replying 
> to a message that I had sent myself, and my mailer gets confused when I 
> do that.  (I wrote my own mailer.  It's called Decimail and it's 
> open-source.  It does lots of cool things, but it's not perfect.)

The 'Re: but no References:' rule is there to prevent broken mailers
(usually Outlook) from breaking threading on the mailing list. Please
consider it a bug report -- if you were replying to a previous message,
whoever that message came from, then your reply should contain either
References: or In-Reply-To: headers, or preferably both.

> Now, you have lost the explanation for the patch and have annoyed me 
> enough that I am unlikely to go out of my way to fix any further 
> problems that I spot in your code. 

You don't keep your own outgoing mail? Do you want a copy? I'm sure
it'll be buried in my postmaster mailbox somewhere, from when I got the
'message trapped for moderation' notice.

>  Was this really worth it just for a missing header?

In general, yes. Forcing people to use non-buggy MUAs helps to keep the
signal:noise ratio down. There are very occasional people who are so
offended by it that they cannot manage to either fix their mailer or get
a proper one -- but as a sweeping generalisation, they aren't much of a
loss.

I don't include you in that generalisation specifically -- I hope you'll
reconsider. Although I haven't had time in the last couple of weeks to
respond to your patches and apply them, they are very much appreciated.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Open message to list moderator

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 23:30 +0100, Phil Endecott wrote: 
> Dear Moderator,
> 
> You have just rejected a message that I sent on Sunday.  This message 
> provided background information to the patch that I sent at about the 
> same time (and which was accepted).

Phil, apologies, I had to look closer and noticed that this was the
first message with this subject and do not select reject. It was late,
there were many messages, I wanted to go home quicker, I was hungry,
tired, and so on, you know :-)

> Now, you have lost the explanation for the patch and have annoyed me 
> enough that I am unlikely to go out of my way to fix any further 
> problems that I spot in your code.  Was this really worth it just for a 
> missing header?

But this really is childish to be miffed like this. Take it easier.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)

Re: Open message to list moderator

[MikeW]

Phil Endecott <spam_from_linux_mtd <at> chezphil.org> writes:

> 
> Dear Moderator,
> 
> You have just rejected a message that I sent on Sunday.  This message 
> provided background information to the patch that I sent at about the 
> same time (and which was accepted).
> 
...snip
> 
> I invite other list subscribers to express their opinions.
> 
> Phil.

More annoying are posts with Subject line: "newbie question" (etc.)

The "Artem bot" ;) should bounce those with a link to
"How to ask questions the smart way" !

Regards,
MikeW