Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: Conclusion

[Terry Reedy]

<eltronic at juno.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.592.1068443199.702.python-list at python.org...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:29:35 -0500 "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu>
> writes:
> >
> > "Edward K. Ream" <edreamleo at charter.net> wrote
> > [lots of stuff about the benefits of Leo over several posts]
> > > Edward K. Ream   email:  edreamleo at charter.net
> >
> > In response to this series, I sent you a friendly note saying a) I
am
> > considering Leo as a base for a future project and
> > b) I think there is a problem with a couple of
> > lines in the code you posted.
>
> NameError: name 'c' is not defined?
> I wondered about that too...(if that was it)

I wrote him about an apparent double binding of 'c'.

> > In  response, you sent me the
> >
> > ----------
> > You recently sent a message to me at the email address
> > edreamleo at charter.net. To help cope with the ever increasing
volume
> > of
> > junk e-mail, I am using ChoiceMail, a permission-based e-mail
> > filtering tool. Your original e-mail is being held by ChoiceMail
> > until
> > you complete the following simple one-time process.
> > Please click on the link
> > [Click here to request approval]
> > When your browser opens, fill in your name and a short reason for
> > wanting to send e-mail to me. If your reason is acceptable, your
> > first
> > email and all subsequent e-mails from you will be delivered to me
> > normally.
> > ------------
> >
> > I will not beg you to read my bug report.  Such a request is *NOT*
> > a
> > legitimate 'anti-junk-mail' measure.
>
> personal email to an author is rarely welcome
> as a bug report! although in this case a tossup.

When someone posts articles in a newgroup, there are two appropriate
response channels: a public followup article such as mine, yours, and
mine, and a private note to the response address given.  Since I was
not completely sure there was a bug, and certainly did not know the
appropriate fix, and since only people who downloaded Leo could run
the example and stumble over the problem, if there was one, I thought
it appropriate to respond privately at the address *HE INCLUDED IN THE
TEXT* and let him followup as he thought appropriate.

If the author of a newsgroup posting does not want personal replies,
he should *not* put his address in the text and *should* either say
explicitly 'Please no private replies.' and/or use an obviously fake
address in the From: header.

> if you've checked the sourceforge forums,
> you would see the nature of the response
> time to problems of any kind including wild eyed
> spitballing of ideas is nearly immediate.

I was responding to a newgroup posting -- in the standard and
appropriate manner -- not the content on sourceforge.

> > Being unable to communicate directly with you makes
> > Leo less inviting to me. If I were
> > to adopt Leo for a project anyway,
> > I would warn users to not email the above address.
>
> not wanting the job of channeling EKR,
> you must realize the level of spam a project like
> Leo generates would render any email address
> unusable in short time.

If this is an intolerable problem for him, he could, when posting, use
a throwaway or usenet-only address for replies.

> really, it's a painless few clicks & keystrokes,

Not for me...and I want anyone contemplating imitating Mr. Ream to
know that.

> if you can get over your initial reaction.

To see if I were over-reacting, I asked my more socially adept wife to
read his boilerplate reply.  Her response was as strongly negative.

> since spam isn't going away, you have to admit
> this is one of few good solutions.

NO, THIS IS A BOGUS 'SOLUTION'.  Any rule-based or statistical filter
worth installing would have passed my email.  A legitimate whitelist
program sends a reply, with coded subject line, something like 'I have
received an email with your return address.  If you receive this reply
and you really sent that email, just hit reply and send and you will
be added to my list of real people.'  Very little junk mail come with
a valid, non-forged address connected to a human reader.

Read his response again.  He is asking people to send a second
message, thru an alternate channel, giving 'reasons' which he will
judge for 'acceptibility'.  This is crazy, if not egotistical.  He can
just as quickly read and even evaluate the original message, perhaps
after verifying that it is from a real person.

Not acceptible.

> there are additional bug reports and a diary of
> the Leo dev cycle in LeoPy.leo and LeoDocs.leo
> and an active forum on sourceforge.
> http://sourceforge.net/forum/?group_id=3458

Again, my response to him was about his posted articles, and not about
Leo.

Terry J. Reedy