Re: [Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> nettime-bold.

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

i2eye@mac.com (Thu 04/05/01 at 09:18 PM -0400):

> >as felix noted, <nettime@bbs.thing.net> is the admin account or
> >'listowner' of the mailing list <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>. that
 <...>
> >we have explained the difference between the two addresses many
> >times to many people,
> 
> But not in sufficient detail to describe how it really works.

<http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/200010/msg00316.html>--
for example. there are many other instances in which we've explained
it privately. this conversation suggests that it's time to send out 
the message at the above URL again. i'll also look into whether the 
info file for new subscribers needs to be updated. 

> >but, ultimately, people are at liberty to
> >send mail wherever they want. if they send it to -l, it goes to
> >-bold; if they don't it doesn't.
> 
> But it doesn't no matter what. One can send to nettime-l a fairly innocuous
> message that never sees the light of day, even in nettime-bold.

it's an automatic process, not manual: the only way to intervene
would be to de-activate the software and stop *all* forwarding to
-bold, which afaik no one has ever done. true, every once in a 
while something breaks--for example, a mailserver gets wedged or 
there's a DNS or connectivity failure *at any point between the
sender of the original message to nettime-l and a subscriber to
nettime-bold. that's unavoidable. otherwise, though, all mail sent 
to nettime-l@bbs.thing.net goes *automatically* to -bold. by the
same token, people can post directly to -bold without posting to
nettime-l: that was an affirmative goal, not an oversight or a 
failure.

> One would think you could figure out the technology to provide more
> transparency. As it is, it is obfuscating.

i don't think it's a failure to 'figure out the technology,' at
least not a failure on the part of the list's maintainers. there
are a number of issues involved, of which transparency is one.
the system we've set up has aspects that are good and bad, but in
the balance it's pretty good: requires minimal maintenance, does 
what it was intended to do, and is reliable. again, if someone
wants to send a message to nettime-l but not to -bold, that's 
possible; and their desire to do so is as legitimate as others'
desire for total transparency. these things would be true of any
system we set up.

> >do i really need to point out that felix wrote that message ~6
> >months ago?
> 
> Qué? Yes, as a matter of fact, you do need to point this out. Why not provide
> more up-to-date info?

see above.

> >since then, the -bold archives caused some serious
> >problems with the server, and as a result were shut down. they
> >will be restarted when circumstances permit.
> 
> This is somewhat difficult to parse. What are the circumstances?

the nettime.org server supports a number of domains and activities,
some of which have caused technical problems for the server as a
whole; and then there are the kinds of failures that happen every
once in a while. these mailing lists are supported without charge,
so they will never conform to some 'mission-critical' ideal, which
even for organizations with massive IT resources is imaginary.

> >in the meantime, as felix noted in a recent message to nettime,
> >if you're unhappy with the existing setup, you're free to make
> >and maintain your own 'correct' version of -l and -bold.
> 
> I do, and it is quite confusing... basically two distinct lists.

not basically two lists, *definitely* two lists: two different
names, two different servers running two different kinds of list-
serving software.

cheers,
t

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold