Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: Conclusion

[val]

Dear Terry J. Reedy:
    Generally, you sound quite logical.
    However, in the real world saturated with spam one
feels uncomfortable indeed and tries to handle
the problem *somehow*.
    I guess my simple point is about *tolerance*
and *understanding* and *taking things in the context*,
which makes this newsgroup (based on my observations)
quite distinctive...
    respectful-ly y'rs,
val

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:8s2dnY6a29XCITKiRVn-vA at comcast.com...
>
> <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
>
>