| 1 |
On Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:52 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> It is a bit of "we will not hide problems" vs "not hiding problems |
| 5 |
> actually causes those problems." Suicide by social contract? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
As an alternative approach, how easy is it to rewrite emails to inject |
| 8 |
footer text? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Like a bog standard: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Problem with this email? Don't reply and make it worse. |
| 13 |
Explore the alternatives: |
| 14 |
http://someurl.gentoo.org/report?ml=gentoo-dev&msgid=12345 |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Where the ml/msgid parts are filled in. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That page can contain a list of options, including making a formal |
| 19 |
complaint, but it can also help document and assist people with |
| 20 |
avoiding seeing that email in future, including a list of instructions |
| 21 |
for specific mail clients, pre-filled with tokens from the email |
| 22 |
identified by the msgid. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The idea is to lower the barrier to reporting your disapproval, or |
| 25 |
lowering the barrier to making it so you don't have to see it any more. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
We could, in theory, even extend this service to allow subscribers to |
| 28 |
add gentoo-side filtering, wherein gentoo doesn't block the offending |
| 29 |
user, but only blocks the relay of matching messages to subscribers who |
| 30 |
opted out. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
That way you're not relying on their MUA in any way. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
And that is far less "orwellian" in concept, but still has the desired |
| 35 |
effect. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Give users the power to do what they want, as opposed to isolating |
| 38 |
users from everyone because a subset of users didn't like them. |
Archives