Great tip, Brian! ----- Original Message ----- From: <tclug-list-request at mn-linux.org> To: <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:11 PM Subject: tclug-list Digest, Vol 1, Issue 16 > Send tclug-list mailing list submissions to > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://shadowknight.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tclug-list-request at mn-linux.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tclug-list-owner at mn-linux.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tclug-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: need help diagnosing a hardware failure (Brian Wall) > 2. Re: Mailing lists suck. (Dave Sherohman) > 3. Re: Mailing lists suck. (Nate Carlson) > 4. Re: need help diagnosing a hardware failure (Florin Iucha) > 5. New TCLUG Classified Ad (TCLUG Classifieds) > 6. RE: Mailing lists suck. (Chuck Cole) > 7. RE: Mailing lists suck. (Callum Lerwick) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:47:56 -0600 > From: Brian Wall <kc0iog at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] need help diagnosing a hardware failure > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Message-ID: <2c6699da05012210475b52a8ab at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:45:39 -0600, Florin Iucha <florin at iucha.net> wrote: >> I will haul it to nanosys~1 tomorrow and use their PSU tester >> and motherboards and patience to isolate the problem and replace the >> faulty component. > > For those who don't know, here's a simple homebrew ATX power supply > tester. > You need: hard drive that spins, paper clip. > > Plug the hard drive in as normal. Unplug the 20 pin ATX connector > from the motherboard. Turn the connector so the little plastic clip > is facing you. Take the paper clip and short together pins 14 and 15. > Pin 14 is 4th from the left (usually green), pin 15 is one more to > the right (usually black). The hard drive should spin up. > > Don't keep the power supply on for more than a couple seconds, > underloading a power supply may damage it. > > I have a power supply tester at work that's the same concept, except > it has a massive carbon resistor/heatsink thing on it negating the > need for the hard drive. > > -Brian > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:13:18 -0600 > From: Dave Sherohman <esper at sherohman.org> > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] Mailing lists suck. > To: TCLUG <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> > Message-ID: <20050122191318.GB19954 at sherohman.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:18:15PM -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote: >> (Someone else said, but the attribution did not appear in Callum's post:) >> > I happen to think it's very broken behavior myself; but users who >> > aren't >> > used to mailing lists seem to expect that when they click "Reply", it >> > will >> > go to the person, and when they click "Reply All", it will go to the >> > list. >> > *shrugs* > > I'm quite used to mailing lists, yet I still expect "reply" to reply > only to the sender and "reply to all" to send a copy to each and every > address found in the to:, from:, or cc: headers (possibly excepting mine, > depending on my MUA configuration), regardless of whether the message > came by way of a list or not. I dislike it when list management programs > break this expectation as a matter of course. > > Now, if we were to get all common MUAs to support separate "reply > to sender" and "smart reply" functions where "reply to sender" would > always do exactly that and "smart reply" would detect mailing lists, > check reply-to:, etc., then I would have no problem with that. Setting > reply-to: on lists tries to turn "reply to sender" into "smart reply", > which is just bad because a) it's not very smart and b) if I say "reply > to sender" I mean "reply to sender". But, considering the failure > of mutt-like "reply to list" commands to appear in all common MUAs, > I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that a widely-implemented "smart reply" > won't be happening any time soon, either. > >> Yes. One point of irritation is EVERY other list *I* happen to be on, >> mangles reply-to. And its how the old list worked for many years. So its >> deeply ingrained habit now to just be able to hit Reply, no matter how >> "incorrect" it may be. > > Every other list I happen to be on does not insert reply-to: headers, > with the exception of the half of them that are run through yahoo groups. > My deeply ingrained habit, then, is to use mutt's reply-to-list function > when that's what I want to do, so that I don't have to remember how the > list I'm on at the moment does it. And, yes, I had completely forgotten > that the old list had set reply-to: on messages because of this; if I > had remembered that detail, I probably wouldn't have commented on the > topic in the first place. > >> > Personally, it annoys the heck out of me to get a direct copy of the >> > message instead of just receiving it through the listserv. Procmail >> > rules >> > on List-Id don't work very well on direct replies, after all! >> >> This is the other point of irritation. > > Why is that, assuming that you're getting just the direct reply and > not one direct and one via the list? A direct reply isn't list mail, > so list filters really shouldn't apply to it, should they? (If you > are getting two copies, aren't there procmail rules that can be used to > recognize and suppress the duplicate?) > > In any case, my big beef with lists setting reply-to: automatically > is that, as you say, getting a duplicate copy is irritating, but, if > someone wants to reply to the list and inadvertently replies privately, > then getting duplicates is the worst thing that will come of it and it's > just irritating, no more. Inadvertently sending a response to the list > which you intended to be private is much more likely to have significant > negative consequences, ranging from embarrassment to lawsuits. (Oops... > I didn't mean to break that NDA...) Not only is leaving reply-to alone > more consistent with non-list mail, it's also safer for the list's > subscribers. > >> The fact that weird and annoying issues like this exist in the first >> place, are the reason I think mailing lists are an ugly kludge created >> to solve a problem that no longer exists. >> >> Another reason? The bounce problem. > > That's really more of a problem with email itself rather than lists > in particular. Different MTAs handle bounces differently, which can > make it very difficult (if not impossible - some MTAs bounce mailing > list messages back to the original sender instead of the list server) > to reliably recognize them. > > And then there are incorrectly-configured MTAs to contend with... > I have one user on a Mailman list I run who is apparently on a dialup > connection and using something similar to fetchmail. I guess he tried to > cleverly handle multiple accounts in multiple domains and was outsmarted > by his MTA, because whenever he retrieves messages, I get a bounce at the > list owner address (fortunately he's in digest mode so nobody else gets > them) complaining that there's no user on his machine with the list's > name (presumably derived from the to: header instead of the envelope > information) and the bounce claims to be coming from my list server > (his MTA seems to be pretending that it's the host in the to: header as > well), right down to HELOing as my domain. I tracked down his ISP in an > attempt to find out what the actual subscribed address was so I could > remove it, but, of course, they said that the IP address the bounces > came from was their NAT host and they couldn't even try to identify the > user and contact him themselves unless he's doing something illegal. > > A long digression, I'll admit, but that's an SMTP/MTA issue that even > people who know what they're doing aren't able to cleanly fix. How is > a piece of software supposed to deal with it? > >> Mailing lists made sense back when everyone wasn't on the net full time, >> or even directly connected to the net at all, (UUCP, FidoNet, Bitnet, >> Compuserve...) but it really doesn't anymore. > > Dial-up users still exist. Even if we assume that everyone on this > list is online full-time (which I think is highly unlikely), we're a > highly-technical segment of the population here and can't be expected to > represent the average joe in that aspect. Not to mention that, until we > have ubiquitous public wireless coverage, my laptop isn't (and won't be) > on the net full time, even if my other machines are. > > I don't think that anyone believes email or mailing lists are perfect, > but I have yet to see anything better. > > -- > The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of > the > White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important > that > we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened. > - Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:34:55 -0600 (CST) > From: Nate Carlson <natecars at real-time.com> > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] Mailing lists suck. > To: TCLUG <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> > Message-ID: > <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501221327480.22336 at conformity.technicality.org> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Dave Sherohman wrote: >> Why is that, assuming that you're getting just the direct reply and not >> one direct and one via the list? A direct reply isn't list mail, so >> list filters really shouldn't apply to it, should they? (If you are >> getting two copies, aren't there procmail rules that can be used to >> recognize and suppress the duplicate?) > > [Note that I am not complaining about the procedure used to reply to the > list -- with Pine, I can accept the defaults when replying and get it to > the list in either case. The big irritation for me with not having > reply-to munging turned on is the duplicate message issue - see below.] > > The problem is that if a user hits reply-to-all, one copy goes directly to > me from the user's mail server, and another copy goes to me via the list > server. The direct copy does not have the List-Id tag, and ends up in my > inbox. The copy from the list server does have the List-Id tag, and will > be sorted into my mailing list folder. If I set up Procmail to strip the > duplicate messages, I will generally only receive the copy sent directly > to me, and not the copy sent to the list (the privately-sent copy will > usually arrive faster.) That mean that that message ends up in my inbox, > where I have to manually delete/move it to the list, instead of the list > folder, where it gets nicely threaded and I can read/delete it at my > leisure. > >> In any case, my big beef with lists setting reply-to: automatically is >> that, as you say, getting a duplicate copy is irritating, but, if >> someone wants to reply to the list and inadvertently replies privately, >> then getting duplicates is the worst thing that will come of it and it's >> just irritating, no more. Inadvertently sending a response to the list >> which you intended to be private is much more likely to have significant >> negative consequences, ranging from embarrassment to lawsuits. >> (Oops... I didn't mean to break that NDA...) Not only is leaving >> reply-to alone more consistent with non-list mail, it's also safer for >> the list's subscribers. > > That never used to be a problem; when I was first signing up for mailing > lists (many moons ago), where the reply-to munging was default, I never > saw those "accidental posts". Now that more users with crappy MUA's (which > don't make it obvious that you're sending back to the list instead of the > user) are using mailing lists, I notice it a lot more. Even so, most users > who do accidently have a post go to the list reply to it and say "Oops, > sorry!" and it never happens again. > > My view on this has always been that if you're replying to a message > posted to the list, the default behavior should be for your reply to go > back to the mailing list; if you want to change that behavior, you'll have > to do something different. It's always seemed perfectly obvious to me.. > > -- > Nate Carlson <natecars at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 > http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:32:08 -0600 > From: florin at iucha.net (Florin Iucha) > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] need help diagnosing a hardware failure > To: Brian Wall <kc0iog at gmail.com> > Cc: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Message-ID: <20050122223208.GA13934 at iucha.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:47:56PM -0600, Brian Wall wrote: >> For those who don't know, here's a simple homebrew ATX power supply >> tester. >> You need: hard drive that spins, paper clip. > > Tried that with no luck: the PSU was fried. I am thankful it did to take > anything else down. After replacing the PSU all is fine and dandy. > > florin > > -- > > Don't question authority: they don't know either! > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: Digital signature > Url : > http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20050122/10013d44/attachment-0001.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:39:58 -0600 > From: TCLUG Classifieds <webmaster at mn-linux.org> > Subject: [tclug-list] New TCLUG Classified Ad > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Message-ID: <200501222239.j0MMdw903909 at crusader.real-time.com> > > New TCLUG Classified Ad > > Category: Computer > > Type of Ad: For Sale > > Subject: Ultra 1E and hubs for trade > > For trade: > > One Sun Ultra 1 Enterprise, in working condition but no CDROM, memory, > hard > drives, spuds, or video card, has a hardware hack; > > One HP J4090A 10baseT unmanaged 8 port hub; > > One HP 24M 10baseT managed 24 port hub, but the managed part is for > naught, > as-is. > > Will trade for 2 pounds of Fair Trade, Medium Roast, ground coffee. > > Email if interested. > > Thanks, > Neal > nodeengineer at msn.com > > > Seller Email address: nodeengineer at msn dot com > > http://www.mn-linux.org/cgi-bin/classifieds/index.cgi > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:20:04 -0600 > From: "Chuck Cole" <cncole at earthlink.net> > Subject: RE: [tclug-list] Mailing lists suck. > To: "TCLUG" <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> > Message-ID: <DJEHLONFBIGDNAPDPEMKEEIGCEAA.cncole at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org >> [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Callum Lerwick >> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:18 PM >> To: TCLUG >> >> Mailing lists made sense back when everyone wasn't on the net full time, >> or even directly connected to the net at all, (UUCP, FidoNet, Bitnet, >> Compuserve...) but it really doesn't anymore. > > > I disagree. Your assumtions seem to be for a minor subset of people at > most. Not *everyone* is on full time now, and many of us > travel, etc, so the list function is strongly preferred by many. Some who > are "often on" strongly prefer lists and their features. > Some of us prefer not to use web or usenet (etc) for list types of > activity. > > I do agree that any REPLY function should be used intelligently and that > replies should be trimmed as well. I prefer that replies > go to the list whenever the info may be of use to others. > > > Chuck > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:58:26 -0600 > From: Callum Lerwick <seg at haxxed.com> > Subject: RE: [tclug-list] Mailing lists suck. > To: TCLUG <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> > Message-ID: <1106449106.25111.29.camel at bigtime> > Content-Type: text/plain > >> I disagree. Your assumtions seem to be for a minor subset of people at >> most. Not *everyone* is on full time now, and many of us >> travel, etc, so the list function is strongly preferred by many. > > Offline mode. > > And mailing list functionality can be preserved for the diehards. > Citadel can allow people to subscribe to rooms, mailing list style. > > I'm playing around with gating mailing lists into Citadel. There's two- > way gatewaying waiting in CVS... I'll try giving out access if I get it > all working. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > End of tclug-list Digest, Vol 1, Issue 16 > *****************************************