Post by thread:[PICLIST] [ADMIN]: Untagged posts. (was: PIC 12F62

On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 11:17:35AM -0500, Dale Botkin wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Byron A Jeff wrote: > > > Forgot the tag. Sorry. > > > > That raises a question: Is it possible to configure the mailing list to reject > > tagless posts from an individual. > > Nope. You'll get the standard whine from the server if you forget the > tag, but rejecting untaged posts is a global thing we'd rather avoid > (though I'm less sure why as time goes on). I retagged this thread since it's strictly admin now. I realize that I phrased my question poorly. Let me try again. Somewhere in the list software there is a script that detects that a post isn't tagged and sends the nice reply back. It also goes ahead and forwards the post to the list. My newly rephased question is this. Is it possible for untagged posts to be rejected ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS (emphesis mine)? While I can understand maybe not wanted to do this on a global basis, especially with first time posters, I'm also pretty sure that most of the regulars like myself probably don't want to have to go through the DOH! experience of having to repost an untagged message. I'd really like to select for myself the ability to reject untagged posts, because I would never intentionally send an untagged post. All of my top level posts should be tagged. BTW it's only the reposting part that I'm trying to alleviate. Another possible solution is to automagically tag untagged posts as '[OT]:'. Since the post is tagged, even possibly incorrectly, I'll feel less compelled to clutter up the list with a follow up post. It'll also not irratate the new posters who are not in Cluesville in terms of why we tag. Just some thoughts. If it's possible and simple, I'd really like to see it done. If it's possible but difficult, I'd like to help. If it's so difficult as to be virtually impossible. I can live with that. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

> BTW it's only the reposting part that I'm trying to alleviate. Another possible > solution is to automagically tag untagged posts as '[OT]:'. Since the post > is tagged, even possibly incorrectly, I'll feel less compelled to clutter up > the list with a follow up post. It'll also not irratate the new posters who > are not in Cluesville in terms of why we tag. How about an "[UNTAGGED]" tag which is intended for use ONLY for this purpose (and for tagging wags mayhaps). Using the full length word rather than the abbreviation would make it stand out for those taking full service. A disadvantage would be having people reply while leaving the UNTAGGED tag (!). Mayhaps (experienced) users could be encouraged to retag such posts to an appropriate tag when they reply. Adds overhead, and maybe no worse than the tagless items now. How about throwing all untagged items into a manually checked list for a natural person ( :-) ) to make a tag decision. A quick skim up the list suggests that there are not too many untagged messages so this task would not be TOO onerous. I might even be able to be persuaded to take it on on a trial basis if it seemed a useful way to go. Untagged messages would be forwarded to the natural-person (TM), preferably with an added UNTAGGED (or similar) tag and they would then repost to the list asap with a reference to the original poster attached. Doing it within the system rather than as above would allow the message to still be titled as from the original sender but may be more complex to implement and time consuming to operate. Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

If we had the flexibility to do that within the listserv software it would be great. I don't think we do... I'll let Herbert or Josh or James do the reading to confirm or deny that if they have the time right now, I'm rather busy at the moment. Not that my time is more valuable than theirs, but mine is spoken for right now and I don't know about theirs. Anyway... I guess another alternative might be to just not allow untagged posts, dunno if that's an option either. I'll put it on my list of Stuff To Do (tm), talk to my wife about getting it bumped up on the list (ha - good luck!). 8-) Dale -- "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Russell McMahon wrote: {Quote hidden}> > BTW it's only the reposting part that I'm trying to alleviate. Another > possible > > solution is to automagically tag untagged posts as '[OT]:'. Since the post > > is tagged, even possibly incorrectly, I'll feel less compelled to clutter > up > > the list with a follow up post. It'll also not irratate the new posters > who > > are not in Cluesville in terms of why we tag. > > How about an "[UNTAGGED]" tag which is intended for use ONLY for this > purpose (and for tagging wags mayhaps). > Using the full length word rather than the abbreviation would make it stand > out for those taking full service. > > A disadvantage would be having people reply while leaving the UNTAGGED tag > (!). Mayhaps (experienced) users could be encouraged to retag such posts to > an appropriate tag when they reply. Adds overhead, and maybe no worse than > the tagless items now. > > How about throwing all untagged items into a manually checked list for a > natural person ( :-) ) to make a tag decision. A quick skim up the list > suggests that there are not too many untagged messages so this task would > not be TOO onerous. I might even be able to be persuaded to take it on on a > trial basis if it seemed a useful way to go. Untagged messages would be > forwarded to the natural-person (TM), preferably with an added UNTAGGED (or > similar) tag and they would then repost to the list asap with a reference to > the original poster attached. > > Doing it within the system rather than as above would allow the message to > still be titled as from the original sender but may be more complex to > implement and time consuming to operate. > > > > Russell McMahon > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Dale Botkin wrote: > If we had the flexibility to do that within the listserv software it would > be great. I don't think we do... I'll let Herbert or Josh or James do > the reading to confirm or deny that if they have the time right now, I'm > rather busy at the moment. Not that my time is more valuable than theirs, > but mine is spoken for right now and I don't know about theirs. Anyway... > I guess another alternative might be to just not allow untagged posts, > dunno if that's an option either. I'll put it on my list of Stuff To Do > (tm), talk to my wife about getting it bumped up on the list (ha - good > luck!). > > 8-) > > Dale > -- > "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that > curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly." > - Arnold Edinborough Doesn't the list already send a message to the user about the post being untagged. If I'm correct, then banning all untagged posts but always sending such a message to the poster would at least give them the reason why the post in not allowed, and stop the irritation on list that such posts cause. Just my 2gb pence :) Bryan -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Byron A Jeff wrote: > My newly rephased question is this. Is it possible for untagged posts to be > rejected ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS (emphesis mine)? Nope. At least I don't think so. > BTW it's only the reposting part that I'm trying to alleviate. Another possible > solution is to automagically tag untagged posts as '[OT]:'. Since the post > is tagged, even possibly incorrectly, I'll feel less compelled to clutter up > the list with a follow up post. It'll also not irratate the new posters who > are not in Cluesville in terms of why we tag. > > Just some thoughts. If it's possible and simple, I'd really like to see it > done. If it's possible but difficult, I'd like to help. If it's so difficult > as to be virtually impossible. I can live with that. It may be possible... I'll leave it up to one of the ohter admins to look into whether it can be done or not, since I'm kind of swamped with non-list stuff at the moment. Dale -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.