Re: [tlug] unsubscribe

[Ryan Shaw <ryan.shaw@example.com>]

Godwin Stewart wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:26:27 +0900, Ryan Shaw <ryan.shaw@example.com>
> wrote to tlug@example.com:
> 
> > Considering that most modern mail clients hide these
> > nonstandard headers by default, this is probably not
> > the ideal place for such information.
> 
> They may hide it but it isn't inaccessible. Even the most efficient virus
> spreader on the planet (which has a secondary function allowing people to
> send e-mails) allows the user to view such information by hitting Ctrl-F3.
> My MUA allows me to do the same with Ctrl-U.

Like I said, hidden by default.

> It is a well-known fact that mailing list software inserts such headers to
> make it possible for those who never read the instructions to manage their
> list subscription(s). 

A well-known fact among list administrators, perhaps, and savvy computer
users. But the intersection of this set with the set of people who can 
muddle through subscribing to a mailing list is close to null.

> I can't agree more with what Sekiya-san said: "The rash of incorrect 
> unsubscribe requests is solely due to laziness."

I agree. But our knowing this won't make those fools any less lazy. I would
suggest putting unsubscribe information in a footer attached to every list
mail, but I've been on plenty of lists that do that, and idiots still can't
figure it out.

Maybe the solution is making subscribing equally hard or harder than 
unsubscribing. Keep the lazy folk out at the door.

For example, the alt.hackers newsgroup used to be listed as a moderated
newsgroup. But there was no moderator: messages sent to that group went
to /dev/null. Unless, of course, you hacked your headers to "approve"
you own post. A clever way to keep out the riff-raff. :^)

But I believe LUGs should be forces for advocacy, so as much as I love
techno-elitism, I couldn't really endorse such behavior. It would be 
cool though...

Ryan