Re: Who is JT and why this NG won't be used?

Ilgaz Ocal wrote:

> I would not do anything on the forums administered by WazOo nicked
> person as he jumps to every single forum post, has a seriously flaming
> attitude etc.

Whether you like to interact in a community of webforum or nntp
participants, everyone is going to have their individual style.

One of the nice things about nntp is its ability to fiter out or
killfile those individuals whose posts you don't want to read.

> I hear on every single response of him that "JT" does not want us to
> use standard local nntp server way of describing our problems.

I think the way it works is that JT believes that the webforum is a good
way to handle the problem of many users not being nntp savvy.  How to
provide the full spectrum of support is complicated.  There's news.
There's a mailing list.  There's a webfaq.  There's a webforum.  There's
a webforum faq structure.  There's deputy email support.

My philosophy is different from someone else's philosophy -- but the
important philosophy is that one the one who is actually administering.

> If that is the issue, I can not use forums if an issue happens. I
> simply REJECT any  "web forum" administered by some persons alter ego.
> If they are volunteer with such attitude, it is worse as they have
> nothing to lose and we "owe" them for some reason.

Your reason for avoiding the webforum may be different from my reason
for avoiding the webforum -- but we might share our preference for nntp
interaction.

> I really like the Spamcop idea from early beginnings of it and as a
> way to show my support, I paid for yearly mail service.

As a customer, that entitles you to criticize what is wrong with it.

> If "JT" is more interested in diverting people from a standard based
> support NNTP server to some web board administered by non responsible
> (in financial, work terms) third parties ego, I am out.

I support your wish for mail support in nntp based news forums.

> While there are excellently secure ways of supporting SMTP, they
> reject it. A secure login/TLS/port 583 mandatory SMTP server could be
> setup instead of sparing time teaching their customers how to get
> support for instance.

I think you are saying that while the spamcop mail system is a good spam
filtering system, it is not what some people call a 'robust' mail
service.  Another example of a mail service is cotse, which could be
considered more robust.  It is also a spamfiltering system, but maybe it
isn't as good at spamfiltering as spamcop.
http://www.cotse.net/services.html  Single-User Accounts

> I use computers since 1983 and I really know how to setup my own mail
> server with a fixed IP and host name, the real idea behind this is the
> SUPPORT to Spamcop.
>
> Consider it as a open posting.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin