TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>>I like the idea Eric. This keeps the shitheads off the list. It *could
>>possibly* minimize the volume of moronic messages too!
And Garret answered:
>Maybe I was just put off by Guy's potty-talk, but I think I'd swing the
>other way. Unless Eric has more free time than I think he does, this seems
>like a recipe for disaster, and possibly overkill.
I'm assuming that requiring message confirmation will not make any
more work for Eric, that this is an automagic listserv function. But,
be that as it may be, the question remains... Do we each need to
confirm the messages that we send to this list?
I, personally, would hate to see this happen. It would slow down the
response time, so we wouldn't get the answers to those "I need help
by tomorrow" posts anymore. If there were a time limit on confirmation,
as there is for subscription confirmation, all those Friday messages
would bounce and need to be resent (and reconfirmed) on Monday, and...
Well, suffice it to say our dynamic and energetic list just wouldn't
be the same.
These messages are a nuisance, granted. Somebody did it to me, too,
remember??? But they're relatively benign, easily denied, and easily
ignored. Perhaps this person will tire of the game soon. I don't
know. But I'd hate to see the dynamics of the list change so drastically
over such a minor annoyance.
Just a thought.
-Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com
