[wplug] A question about the list.

[David Tessitor]

Well, I got this from posting back from WPLUG and I'm still waiting for the one mentioned
in item 1 below.  [It came in just as I was about to hit the send, so you have a time
stamp on its arrival here as being one minute before this was sent.]

I wouldn't have said anything but I also noticed I made a misattribution in item 2:  it
should have been identified as a response from John (jmh3 at linuxfreak.com). -- For some
reason the archive server instead lists it as originating from wplug at wplug.org, and, in
referencing the archive as I was writing, Zach's name was the other name I saw in the
thread.  BTW, it seems I had received that response earlier with the jmh3... address
correctly listed on my end, but for some reason Netscape just started a new thread with it
at the bottom of my lists while the archive continued the old thread.

I also noticed that the archive correctly lists the order of the Billings/Aiken responses
(mentioned below), but it also inserted the "snort or swat?" posting from John (jmh3) in
between them in its threading and once again shows the originating address as coming from
wplug at wplug.org but its correct on the email of it that I got from the list

My point is that I guess there are more than enough email/list handling screw ups to go
around, and I'm not so sure restamping by the server will solve that.  For example, how
would restamping handle an email that is delayed in its delivery to the server.  If it
stamped such a posting on receipt or on resending, an early comment could be shown as
being made long after much later comments which referenced and discussed material sent
in-between.  That could make the early commenter look quite stupid or at least rather slow
on the uptake.

I guess it all comes down the the voting problem.  We know from the study of mathematics
that it is theoretically impossible to have a totally "fair" election, because there is
always another arrangement which in some situations would more accurately reflect the
desires of the electors.  Maybe the same sort of thing also applies to list serving:
there is always something that gets thrown out of whack no matter how you set it up.

Dave

========

David Tessitor wrote:

> As couple of confounding examples:
>
> 1) the response I sent nearly four hours ago has yet to arrive back to me from WPLUG
> via @home, but more recent responses I've made have. -- That's @home for you!
>
> 2) the response Zach made to the above unreceived response also has yet to arrive
> (that's why I check the archives before sending anything).  But I did find something
> that sort of throws a stick in the mud:
>
> i.e. using thread sorting under Netscape, Jonathan Billings' "Stop Posting 'Me Too's
> complaint is dated: "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:59:14 -0500 (EST)" but it is listed in the
> thread under the reply to it from Christopher Aiken dated "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:48:29
> -0500 (EST)."  --  These aren't even close in time, and based upon their time stamp
> the order should have been correct.  Unless their computers are way off and there's
> another hidden time stamp that set a different order, or maybe Chris just sent his
> first ... no, wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense...
>
> I've noticed this confounding mix up before several times, too.  I just don't see what
> would be responsible or how a time stamp set by the list server would remedy it.  But,
> then again I know next to nothing technical about email processing.
>
> Dave