- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Compaq auction

by Michelle Vadeboncoeur

http://www.dovebid.com/Auctions/AuctionDetail.asp?AuctionID=1260 Compaq out of Houston, TX is having a webcast auction on 5/14 of a bunch of their stuff (check the equipment catalog), ranging from the office TVs and video projectors, to monitors, servers, storage arrays, desktops, individual cards, etc. Looks like some nice stuff. 8) I thought that you guys might be interested in perhaps picking up something, hopefully on the inexpensive side. Sorry for the late notice, though. -- --==*==-- --==*==-- Michelle R. Vadeboncoeur --==*==-- --==*==-- mrv(a)kluge.net: http://www.kluge.net/~mrv/

May 11, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Lee Keyser-Allen

I just have to say since I managed to spawn such an impressive thread that it was 100% user error on my part ... The real problem is that I have a number of friends that use reply-to: and actually would like things sent there instead, so I have developed the habit of just hitting return whenever my helpful mailer decides to ask me that fateful question. Of course I could have (as Chuck so helpfully suggests) double checked the place where I was sending it as well, so I think that I can pretty confidently take full credit for this one. If someone would like to blame the list, don't let me get in the way, but in reality it's just a blunder of habit. Cheers, all! (P.S. yes, this one really is intended to go to the list :-P) On Thu, 9 May 2002, Josh Huber wrote: > "Charles R. Anderson" <cra(a)WPI.EDU> writes: > > > Yes. They should check the To: and Cc: headers for every single > > message they send, whether it is a personal message or not, on a > > mailing list or not. I don't think this is unreasonable. > > Well, okay. I almost always check the headers, but it is nice to have > consistency -- hit the reply key to send a message to the author of > the message you're reading. Hit the followup key to reply to everyone > (or, perhaps the Mail-Followup-To header contents). Hit the list > reply key to only reply to the list. I like the idea that from list > to list, you get a consistant behavior, with no surprises. (well, very > few hopefully ;) > > > huber> of them perform reply-to munging. So...I'm not sure what > > huber> lists you're subscribed to, but I find it odd that the > > huber> statistics are so > > > > The ISC's lists such as dhcp-server. > > Okay. Perhaps my stats are skewed because of the large number of > lists from lists.debian.org and lists.linuxppc.org which I'm > subscribed to. After checking I did notice one other list which does > this (making it 4 total, ~10%). > > > I don't really care either way, since I always check the To: and Cc: > > headers before hitting the final send button. In addition, my > > mailer asks "Reply to foo(a)bar.baz?" when a reply-to exists. > > Indeed, this is sensible behavior and would avoid most mistakes. > However, maybe most people are not using a sensible mailer? > (cheap-shot) > > > If people feel that it would be more appropriate to not munge the > > header in the mailing list software, it wouldn't bother me if it was > > changed. > > Well, you have my vote to have it removed. Of course, it's ultimately > up to the list admin. > > -- Lee Keyser-Allen lkeyser(a)wpi.edu WPI CS 2002

May 9, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Josh Huber

"Charles R. Anderson" <cra(a)WPI.EDU> writes: > Yes. They should check the To: and Cc: headers for every single > message they send, whether it is a personal message or not, on a > mailing list or not. I don't think this is unreasonable. Well, okay. I almost always check the headers, but it is nice to have consistency -- hit the reply key to send a message to the author of the message you're reading. Hit the followup key to reply to everyone (or, perhaps the Mail-Followup-To header contents). Hit the list reply key to only reply to the list. I like the idea that from list to list, you get a consistant behavior, with no surprises. (well, very few hopefully ;) > huber> of them perform reply-to munging. So...I'm not sure what > huber> lists you're subscribed to, but I find it odd that the > huber> statistics are so > > The ISC's lists such as dhcp-server. Okay. Perhaps my stats are skewed because of the large number of lists from lists.debian.org and lists.linuxppc.org which I'm subscribed to. After checking I did notice one other list which does this (making it 4 total, ~10%). > I don't really care either way, since I always check the To: and Cc: > headers before hitting the final send button. In addition, my > mailer asks "Reply to foo(a)bar.baz?" when a reply-to exists. Indeed, this is sensible behavior and would avoid most mistakes. However, maybe most people are not using a sensible mailer? (cheap-shot) > If people feel that it would be more appropriate to not munge the > header in the mailing list software, it wouldn't bother me if it was > changed. Well, you have my vote to have it removed. Of course, it's ultimately up to the list admin. -- Josh Huber

May 9, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Charles R. Anderson

On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 03:31:10PM -0400, Josh Huber wrote: huber> Well, people are used to hitting reply to send a personal reply. huber> Should people have to check the headers for every list they're on? Yes. They should check the To: and Cc: headers for every single message they send, whether it is a personal message or not, on a mailing list or not. I don't think this is unreasonable. huber> of them perform reply-to munging. So...I'm not sure what lists you're huber> subscribed to, but I find it odd that the statistics are so The ISC's lists such as dhcp-server. huber> Now, it doesn't really affect me, since I just set broken-reply-to for huber> the wlug group, and it ignores the header, but I just like causing huber> trouble so I thought I'd mention it. ;) I don't really care either way, since I always check the To: and Cc: headers before hitting the final send button. In addition, my mailer asks "Reply to foo(a)bar.baz?" when a reply-to exists. If people feel that it would be more appropriate to not munge the header in the mailing list software, it wouldn't bother me if it was changed. -- Charles R. Anderson <cra(a)wpi.edu> / http://angus.ind.wpi.edu/~cra/ PGP Key ID: 49BB5886 Fingerprint: EBA3 A106 7C93 FA07 8E15 3AC2 C367 A0F9 49BB 5886

May 9, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Josh Huber

"Charles R. Anderson" <cra(a)WPI.EDU> writes: > What's even more interesting is that people don't check the headers > before sending email. Well, people are used to hitting reply to send a personal reply. Should people have to check the headers for every list they're on? > Most lists I'm on set the Reply-to: to the mailing list, and I've > never seen even one personal message accidentally sent to the list. Except for the one in this thread, right? Or did you not see that? ;) For the record, out of the 40 mailing lists I'm subscribed to only 3 of them perform reply-to munging. So...I'm not sure what lists you're subscribed to, but I find it odd that the statistics are so different. Almost as as for the other two lists which perform the munging, they are non-technical lists -- ALL other linux/development lists I'm on do not do this. Now, it doesn't really affect me, since I just set broken-reply-to for the wlug group, and it ignores the header, but I just like causing trouble so I thought I'd mention it. ;) have a nice day! -- Josh Huber

May 9, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Theo Van Dinter

On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 02:34:08PM -0400, Josh Huber wrote: > Indeed, it's pretty interesting that even after several people have > accidentally posted private messages to the list this broken header > munging still takes place. On a technical list no less! http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "I don't know why, but first C programs tend to look a lot worse than first programs in any other language (maybe except for fortran, but then I suspect all fortran programs look like `firsts')" (By Olaf Kirch)

May 9, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Charles R. Anderson

On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 02:34:08PM -0400, Josh Huber wrote: huber> Indeed, it's pretty interesting that even after several people have huber> accidentally posted private messages to the list this broken header huber> munging still takes place. On a technical list no less! What's even more interesting is that people don't check the headers before sending email. Most lists I'm on set the Reply-to: to the mailing list, and I've never seen even one personal message accidentally sent to the list. -- Charles R. Anderson <cra(a)wpi.edu> / http://angus.ind.wpi.edu/~cra/ PGP Key ID: 49BB5886 Fingerprint: EBA3 A106 7C93 FA07 8E15 3AC2 C367 A0F9 49BB 5886

May 9, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Josh Huber

Lee Keyser-Allen <lkeyser(a)WPI.EDU> writes: > Doh.. damn reply-to: address Indeed, it's pretty interesting that even after several people have accidentally posted private messages to the list this broken header munging still takes place. On a technical list no less! ttyl, -- Josh Huber

May 9, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Lee Keyser-Allen

Doh.. damn reply-to: address :P -- Lee Keyser-Allen lkeyser(a)wpi.edu WPI CS 2002

May 9, 2002

Re: [Wlug] 2 month + Linux Kernel consulting job

by Lee Keyser-Allen

On Thu, 9 May 2002, Greg Donovan wrote: > We are seeking a consultant to perform some work for a customer of ours > leveraging Linux kernel and SCSI skills. It is a two month+ assignment with > a customer here in the Boston area. The work would be performed full time > on our customer's site. Here is a brief description of the work: What is the approximate time frame for this job (when would it start?) I have extensive Linux driver development experience, but I wouldn't be available until mid-july. If that still works for you, you can find my resume at http://www.jumblebox.com/~lkeyser/resume.html Cheers, Lee -- Lee Keyser-Allen lkeyser(a)wpi.edu WPI CS 2002

May 9, 2002