Re: [pgsql-www] Forums at postgresql.com.au - Mailing list pgsql-general

On 11/21/2010 06:04 AM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2010, at 24:17, Trevor Talbot wrote:
>
>>> I can't explain it any clearer, your email response goes to the mailing list and that mailing list sends a copy to
theoriginal person thats how a mailing list works. It also sends a copy to the forum which is parses you and that
personand anyone else can see the reply on the forum. 
>>
>> Elliot, Magnus wants forum->list email to come from a per-user address
>> so that when he replies directly to that address (without sending it
>> to the list), the response is mapped to a PM.
>
> Actually, I think that's only your approach to a possible solution to achieve what he wants?
>
> I'm not one of the people who've been communicating off-list about this with him, so I may be wrong, but to my
understandingwhat Magnus wants (the requirement, not a solution to it) is this: 
>
> - Person A is on the forums and sends a message that ends up on the ML (and on the forums, naturally).
> - Someone on the ML, Person B, sends him a _private_ reply, not intended to end up in either the ML or the forums.
> - The message goes to the forum software and is passed on to Person A, and does _not_ end up on the forums or the ML.

I rarely use forums (I access most MLs via Gmane, NNTP and a newsreader
which is *the* right way to do it :-) but ISTM insisting that a ML user *must*
be able to send a private message to a forum user, should not only not be a
show-stopper, but could be construed as a misfeature.  Forums and MLs have
different features which is why some people prefer one over the other.  A
feature forums have is that the user community is somewhat restricted compared
to a ML -- people who can send me PMs are limited to other forums users that
have been validated (to a forum-dependent extent) by the forum operators.
I may not want anyone who can get a ML reply address off the internet to
send me a PM.  If you need to send me a PM but can't be bothered to register
on the PG forum to do so (just as you would have to on any other forum) then
one has to question the use of the word, "need".

I also note that even on the ML, you have no *right* to reply in private to
me.  Not on the PG list but on many others I subscribe with a temporary or
unmonitored mailbox and read messages via NNTP or Google or whatever.  I have
a personal policy (which is a convention on many lists) that replies to public
messages should be public -- if you really need to contact me privately, say
so in your public reply and I will figure out a way to make it happen.  It is
an extremely rare need in my experience.  And if it is important to you that
people be able to respond privately to you, then your choice is clear -- use
the ML.  So demanding that the forum *must* provide a way for a mailing user
to send private replies to forum users strikes me as more obstructionist than
helpful.

Do some of the people insisting on private email replies have some official
role in the PG mailing lists?  Perhaps some of this is just a plain old-
fashioned turf battle?