| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
> > Now hold up a sec! Whilst I agree with Todd, berating Benjamin over
> > something he has no control over won't actually accomplish anything.
Berating? I saw no berating. I merely suggested that he ought to stop
complaining about how things are done here at LUGNET until his own house is in
order.
Further, you see, he actually DOES have control. He can change jobs, he is
working for a clueless employer. It's that simple really. If your employer
isn't providing you the proper tools to work in the net-economy, they are
damaged and deserve to lose you.
In the long run, that change will be good for him and good for the company
that he departs... Perhaps in Australia the economy is dodgy enough to where
changing jobs isn't practical. But in the US, it's easy. If you have the right
skills, anyway.
And if you don't, or if your political system chooses to allocate differently,
why, whose fault is that? Certainly not innocent readers of LUGNET who have to
put up with this nuisance of broken threads. Suffer the consequences of your
choices. Benjamin chooses to live in a country with a broken economy and work
for an employer with broken tools, it's not proper that TODD should have to
code around that or that we should suffer.
Benjamin should. That's what is fair. (overstated for dramatic effect.
Australia isn't QUITE 100% broken, there are countries with far worse systems,
etc... and this threading thing is small potatoes in the grand scheme of
things but still)
Further, he can just stop posting from work. And he should. If he won't, he
must be stopped externally. Now, that's been fixed here, for now... his posts
(and mine too, by the way, if I post via outlook) will be rejected. That is a
good thing. Every time *I* get a rejected post I am going to track down why
and get it fixed (in most cases that means flaming whoever is sending me
courtesy copies of posts).
> The only clean and proper solution is to have the server reject messages from
> mailers that don't put the 'References:' header in. I should have done this
> long ago. :-/ Benjamin is not the only person running the broken software --
> I found a few odd messages from a handful of other people. It's disasterous.
Indeed. Had I known I was causing this problem (.01% of it anyway) I would
have begged for rejection long ago. This rejector is a GOOD thing. Thank you!
++Lar
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
