Re: [Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> nettime-bold.

[Beatrice Beaubien <i2eye@mac.com>]

ted said:

>jesis@xs4all.nl (Wed 04/04/01 at 08:32 AM +0200):
>
>> I think this is not enough, sorry. It is not 'occasionally' that
>> messages don't reach bold (quite ridiculous to have to say this, bold
>> was to be the raw nettime and now we have to complain to get more
> > mail!), it is very often.

/snip

>
>as felix noted, <nettime@bbs.thing.net> is the admin account or
>'listowner' of the mailing list <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>. that
>is how it works, and there are good reasons for it: for example,
>so that error messages--extremely repetitive, hundreds of lines
>long, dozens per day--don't end up spewing back to a list where
>they in turn would generate still more error messages, ad infin-
>itum. there are other very practical reasons for distinguishing
>between the two addresses.
>
>we have explained the difference between the two addresses many
>times to many people,

But not in sufficient detail to describe how it really works.

>but, ultimately, people are at liberty to
>send mail wherever they want. if they send it to -l, it goes to
>-bold; if they don't it doesn't.

But it doesn't no matter what. One can send to nettime-l a fairly innocuous message that never sees the light of day, even in nettime-bold.

>maybe they understand why they
>are sending mail to one address, maybe they don't. it certainly
>isn't appropriate for the moderators to enforce 'correct' under-
>standings or actions.

One would think you could figure out the technology to provide more transparency. As it is, it is obfuscating.

> > This mail from Felix contains quite a few mistakes btw, not a good thing
>> to refer to. Like his claim that bolds archive works? It is easy to say
>> bold does not work, but the reasons for that are quite clear: it has
>> been set up after too much delay and it has never been working properly.
>> Both can still be dealt with I think. So why not do that?
>
>do i really need to point out that felix wrote that message ~6
>months ago?

Qué? Yes, as a matter of fact, you do need to point this out. Why not provide more up-to-date info?

>since then, the -bold archives caused some serious
>problems with the server, and as a result were shut down. they
>will be restarted when circumstances permit.

This is somewhat difficult to parse. What are the circumstances?

>
>in the meantime, as felix noted in a recent message to nettime,
>if you're unhappy with the existing setup, you're free to make
>and maintain your own 'correct' version of -l and -bold.

I do, and it is quite confusing... basically two distinct lists.

>
>cheers,
>t

Cheers to you,

Biti

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold