From: Charles Lindsey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 23 2002 - 05:06:45 CDT
In <20020722132049.GJ90104@demon.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <email@example.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey said:
>>>> Although both of these methods have seen use in the past, the
>>>> preponderance of current usage on Usenet has been for method (b)
>>>> and many moderators are ill-prepared to deal with method (a).
>>>> Therefore, method (a) SHOULD NOT be used until such time as the
>>>> majority of moderators are able to accept it.
>>> ... Something like:
>>> Therefore, method (a) SHOULD NOT be used unless there is good
>>> reason to believe that the moderator in question is able to accept
>>> it (in the absence of information, it should be assumed that he
>>> can not).
>> But that supposes that injectors will know the preferences of "the
>> moderator in question". Some injectors may be prepared to go to that
>> trouble, but I doubt that most will.
>On the other hand, when dealing with a specific group all you need to know
>is the views of *that* moderator. What the majority of moderators can
>handle is irrelevant.
Indeed, but 99.9% of mails to moderators are generated automatically by
injecting agents. So I don't see how my original wording could be changed
(without vast increase in its length) to cover that small 0.1%. I don't think
people who know about a particular moderator's preferences, and are
processing it manually or nearly so, would need to feel inhibited by that
wording. But if you have soething better to suggest, then please do.
>> This is one of those arguments which is going to be fought out in the
>> market place. If we are agreed that both methods are valid (and I hear no
>> contrary argument as yet), and it our hope is that encapsulation should
>> wind in the long term (whenever that is), then the most we can do is to
>> provide a strong initial handicap in favour of the non-encapsulators,
>> which is what my wording was trying to do.
>> First do we agree that is our aim?
>I do, though I might query the word "strong".
It's as strong as a "SHOULD NOT".
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5