On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 06:58:40AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
I actually appreciate nabble. Since I can't post using my work address
(partly because I don't want that stupid legalese trash appended to
archived message, and partly because they block SMTP from non-work
addresses), I end up using web-based fronts that still allow list
posts. Normally, gmane is better, but when gmane is down (and it is
amazing to me how often they are), I have been known to post from
nabble when I am at work and want to post on my break time rather than
waiting for a few hours to when I am back home. I will not argue with
blocking nabble, as I agree that many clueless users tend to use it,
and nabble's handling of posts is comparatively lousy (they won't even
let you reply to all appropriate lists on a message that was originally
cross-posted). So this opinion is just food for thought, and you can
safely ignore it if you want.
I guess I'm being a little hasty in saying Nabble is garbage.
Email-web gateways are useful in some circumstances. It's just that
Gmane seems to get everything right where Nabble gets everything wrong:
Gmane is a transparent gateway; Nabble has that silly banner at the
foot of every message. Gmane doesn't seem to have any problem with
attachments; posts from Nabble users always seem to have attachments
stripped and turned into web links.
I guess the real root of my concern is that the liklihood of a post
being from someone completely clueless that doesn't seem to realize
they are posting to a mailing list seems to be noticeably higher when
it comes from Nabble. Maybe that's just because of the Nabble banner,
maybe it's because Nabble just attracts less-clued users, maybe it's
something else. It's just a little irksome.
FWIW, Nabble users are also determined to send bug reports to
cygwin-apps and cygwin-patches.
I think of Nabble users as akin to AOL users in the early days of
Usenet.
cgf