[Gllug] Problems reading Rev Rumble's posts

[Jonathan Dye]

David Damerell wrote:
> 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. 

They are providing a tool, the fact that it is not suitable is your opinion
(and possibly that of others).  By disallowing outlook users from
reading/posting to this group you would impose your choice of email client
on them.  How about we choose to disallow all users of mutt because I don't
think it is a suitable tool for posting to this group (I don't believe that
really)?

> If my employer let me send
> personal paper mail but their franking machine mangled the envelope,
> I wouldn't use that, either. 

Others might though, you can't say that no-one will or that anyone else
shouldn't.

> 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. 

In which case Outlook does allow you to read and post to the groups so
fulfils that requirement.

> 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. 

True, but Outlook may be the easiest way of reading the groups.

>>> 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.

When you say formatting do you mean formatting of the mail content or how
the mail is constructed by the client?  I think it is possible to usefully
format the content of the email using clients such as Outlook.  This email
for example is written using Outlook 2000 with the Outlook-QuoteFix program.
Of course you may believe that this email is badly formatted.

I don't believe that because someone uses outlook they have nothing useful
to say.  You statement above doesn't say this but in reply to my statement
it implies that by restricting posts from outlook users we won't loose
anything.  I think there are outlook users who can format emails correctly
and make valuable contributions to the list who you wish to exclude (or at
least make it harder for them to post).

I agree with you that outlook is a crap client but I don't think people
should be excluded from this list because they use it.  I would use a
different mail system if I had access to an easy to use mail system from
work but I don't.

JD

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the 
MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service

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