Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: MonkMail!

by Petruchio (Vicar)
on Oct 31, 2000 at 06:29 UTC ( #39235=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RE: RE: RE: RE: MonkMail!
in thread MonkMail!

> First, I don't want mail from non-monks.
While I understand this concern, I don't really agree with it.

You don't agree with my not wanting mail from non-monks?! That seems very strange.

As AgentM mentioned in the root of this thread, being able to list brainpan@perlmonks.org on my resume would be desirable.

Let me say again, "I would be happy if those monks who wanted @perlmonks.org addresses got them." When you can put that address on your resume, I will applaud.

Making this be an esoteric form of perlmonk-only communication would render this benefit null and void.

This whole site is, for the most part, an esoteric form of perlmonk-only communciation (the Anonymous Monk account being the limited exception). Helping the members of this community communciate with each other more efficiently seems central to the purpose of the site. Giving the members of this community an email alias seems more like sugar frosting. Nevertheless, there's no reason why we couldn't have both.

this would give your mail client's mail filters something to search for and deal with as you see fit.

Placing the burden of (yet more) tinkering with spam filters on individual monks seems a poor solution. If it came to that, I'd rather not have Monk Mail. Having sendmail redirect to /dev/null would be much better, though it still wouldn't accomplish what I'd like without an onsite spool and web-based client.

> Fourth, I'm not wholly comforted by the thought of people showing up here simply so they can get @perlmonks.org accounts... as seems inevitable.

You seem to be neglecting the fact that this would be true of your 'private message page' method as well.

Having Monks-only onsite mail would certainly not draw users to the site who were not already interested enough to be here. Nevertheless, I do not really regard this as a viable objection to the idea of mainstream @perlmonks.org addresses. The benefits much outweigh the possible drawbacks. But it is something of a concern. I think I'd prefer to see the requirements for an address set higher, rather than lower, for this reason. But I don't feel very strongly about this either.

Understand, I'm not a provincial person, and I want the site to grow. I want everybody to get what they want out of whatever email system evolves. I simply feel that in this case, my notion would be simpler and quicker to implement, and would actually consitute something new for the monks, rather than a gloss on something they've already got. I respect your opinion, but thus far I have not heard an argument which would make me change my own.


Comment on RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: MonkMail!

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://39235]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-07-23 23:26 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (154 votes), past polls