Re: [ga] GA-FULL disfunctionment

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Jefsey,

>
>On 13:56 27/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>>With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
>>available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person 
>>who
>>is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all 
>>lists.
>
>I do.
>
>This is why I subscribed to GA-FULL. To be sure that cross posting does not
>result into duplicates and that I get everything.

I'm not sure I understand.
You complain about duplicates, direct effect of cross-posting, yet you are 
in favour of cross-posting. Personally, I see a contradiction.

The subscription to GA-full is a completely different thing, as it is 
related to the general purpose GA list, not the special interest groups 
lists, I don't see how they are related.

>
>BTW I must report that the GA-FULL does not work properly, I do not receive
>all the mails I expect. On he GA lists there are two filterings in action:
>- the self imposed filtering resulting from posting on a sub-GA list.
>- the sub-list filtered posts.
>I fully understand that those who are here for fun may be hurt by some
>informations, remarks etc...  and that they need such a protection scheme.
>This is a convenience for them.


Incidentally, the specialised lists are not "sub-lists", are a different 
thing.
(Hint: people may well subscribe to a specific list, because he/she is 
particularly interested in the topic discussed, and may not subscribe to the 
GA, because he/she is not interested in the rest of the traffic. For 
instance, I am subscribed to some IETF specialised lists, but not to the 
general-purpose IETF list)

We definitively disagree on the behaviour of who is here "for fun" (vs. who 
is here "for business").
Who is here "for fun" is not "hurt" at all about the excess posting, the 
cross-posting, the out-of-topic and/or irrelevant posting, the abusive 
language, and all the alike. On the contrary, this is exactly "the fun".
It is rather the people that, being here "for business" need to separate the 
signal from the noise.


>
>It happens that those who are here for their business are actually
>interested in these elements and that for them getting everything is not
>only a convenience but a necessity. By nature GA-FULL is to broadcast every
>post on any GA list as if none of these filterings existed. Or this is not
>a GA-FULL.

The purpose of the GA-FULL has been defined more than a year ago, and has 
not changed: it logs all mail addressed to ga@dnso.org without any 
filtering. And the mail to any other mailing list is *not* falling under 
this definition.

>
>I would thank Elisabeth to see why the GA-FULL currently does not include
>sub-list mails and - according to Patrick - there is no way to receive
>filtered mails on a sub-list. And please to correct this bug.
>

As explained above, what you call "sub-lists" are not a subset of the GA 
list, but separate lists. And they are logged separately, rightfully so.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html