[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*
On 2/17/2008 2:20 AM, Paul Jackson wrote:

> Andrew wrote:

(Since there are multiple Andrews on just the LKML, and at least two -
one of whom is much more prominent than I am - in the direct address
list for this discussion, I'm not sure whether or not this is a
sufficient attribution. If it works for you, though...)

>> (Note: I consider it blatantly incorrect to send a reply both to a
>> mailing list and directly to the address of someone who is
>> subscribed to that list
> Regardless of how you consider it, that is how responding to these
> big lists -must- work.
> There is no practical way for respondents to know, without spending
> at a minimum several minutes of their time per reply, whether or not
> the explicit receipients of a message are or are not also on one or
> more of the receiving lists.

As I have now acknowledged twice (and this makes three times), there
does not seem to be a practical way to avoid it in this instance. That
does not make it any less incorrect to send a duplicate private copy to
the person in question.

> Do you really expect, Andrew, that I should examine the membership
> lists of each of linux-scsi, linux-usb and linux-kernel (if they are
> even open to the public) to see if you're subscribed to them, before
> responding to a message addressed such as this?

Of course not.

> As subscribers and submitters to such lists, we just have to learn to
> deal with this reality. For example, I receive an average of a 100
> messages per hour on this email address, -after- my employers spam
> filters have knocked off over 90% of the incoming.
> May I recommend you become an expert in procmail? That or speed
> reading (and speed ignoring ;).

AFAIRK (though I could be mistaken), procmail is not available under
Windows, which is what I have to use for work purposes. I have an
interest in learning it form my own purposes, but it is very much on the
back burner.

> In a separate reply to this message, Alan Stern wrote:
>> Everyone has his own taste.
> This is not a matter of taste on these big lists. There is no other
> practical alternative.

I'm not disputing that. I just consider it incorrect anyway.

> Joseph Fannin also replied:
>> another free mail service which isn't so broken,
> I'd recommend as one of the least broken, most tech savvy
> mail services. I believe that their free side includes IMAP, though
> not POP support.

I'm not as fond of IMAP as I used to be, though I no longer remember
exactly why, but I thank you for the recommendation. When I have
opportunity I will check it out, though that will probably not be this
week. (I also thank Joseph for the confirmation that the problem does
lie with Gmail.)

And, since there is no longer anything specifically kernel-related in
this subthread, I do not intend to reply publicly in it again unless
requested to do so.

Andrew Buehler

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-17 17:19    [W:0.093 / U:0.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site