[Gllug] Problems reading Rev Rumble's posts

[David Damerell]

On Tuesday, 29 Jul 2003, Jonathan Dye wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Of course this is not the case. People using their own facilities can
>>use a proper mail client. People abusing their employer's facilities
>>shouldn't. People whose employers require them to read GLLUG (if they
>>exist) should inform their employer that they need the right tools to
>>do the job. 
>What about those employers who allow you to read mail groups but only using
>the tools they provide?  Therefore reading the groups would not be abuse but
>would also require you to use Outlook

Then the employer is not providing a suitable tool for posting to the
lists, so you're no further forward. If my employer let me send
personal paper mail but their franking machine mangled the envelope, I
wouldn't use that, either.

As I've said, reading mailing lists is not a right. The onus is on us
to find the right tools for the job - even if it means paying for net
access.

If your employer doesn't require you to read lists, you _do_ have a
choice about not using Outlook; you can read them from a personal
account, or not read them.

>>If we make the list hard to read with Outlook and/or OE, we'll see
>>fewer ugly posts from Outlook and/or OE. I'm not really seeing the
>>downside here. 
>The potential to loose people from the list who make valuable input?

I've always found the principle that people who don't bother with
proper formatting won't have anything useful to say to serve me in
good stead, especially in a technical forum.

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug