At 8/27/2010 01:12 PM Friday, Gary Schrock wrote:
>Yup, as STeve mentions here, after the meeting it was a reasonably
>convincing argument for how the unlikely names could have ended up
>on the block list, enough so that I'm willing to believe that it's
>not corrupted data. Basically, the block and delete buttons were
>very close to each other in the interface at one point, and even
>performed similarly enough (when you blocked a selected message, it
>also deleted it, so if you thought you were deleting it, it would
>have behaved as expected at that point). So unlikely as some of the
>names are, it seems like it was at least potentially possible.
>
>Now, that said, I have to admit I'm a little disappointed that they
>apparently weren't able to get approval to go through with our
>suggested remedy of deleting all blocks in the list prior to Aug
>4th. I think the current "solution" isn't really all that adequate.
And apparently I am the only who thinks, as bumbling as the press is,
having the press put on a little pressure could do some good here.
-- dkm
>Gary
>
>On 8/27/2010 1:00 PM, STeve Andre' wrote:
>>But as I understand it, the action was people hitting the wrong
>>button. So while upon looking at the list it wouldn't make sense,
>>the problem was the layout of the page and how that got people
>>to do the wrong thing.
>>
>>I only dimly remember the screen, and just about as dimly
>>remember thinking it wasn't very good because of where the
>>buttons were placed. Hey--we ought to have a web archive of
>>how web pages looked, in the past.
>>
>>Anyway, though looking at the data makes it seem illogical,
>>the problem of the page layout makes me think that's correct.
>>
>>On Friday 27 August 2010 12:54:34 John Gorentz wrote:
>>
>>>At 12:48 PM 8/27/2010, STeve Andre' wrote:
>>>
>>>>I attended the meeting with Steve Devine et al last week, and I'm
>>>>pretty convinced that there wasn't data munging going on. If your
>>>>user in question has been around since the Twig days, it makes
>>>>some sense that they could have added it then, (accident or not)
>>>>and then completely forgotten about it.
>>>>
>>>>The other possibility, which I think is distinctly less likely of
>>>>happening, is that something back in the Twig era got messed
>>>>up and things got corrupted then. That would be consistent
>>>>with the idea that the mail prefs transfer was successfull in terms
>>>>of the moving of data, but moved bad stuff.
>>>>
>>>>But I don't believe that for two reasons: one, when things get
>>>>corrupted, they get messy. If a add/block entry looked something
>>>>like JohnX^2132aaaaaaa I'd say there was a pointer problem.
>>>>Yes, the most pernicious problems are the ones that have perfectly
>>>>formed bad data, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The
>>>>second reason is that it was just toooo easy to block someone,
>>>>thinking that they were being deleted.
>>>>
>>>The addresses that were on some of these block lists were addresses that
>>>nobody here would ever put on a block list. Maybe on an accept list, but
>>>not on a block list.
>>>
>>>John Gorentz
>>>
>>>
>>>>I still think the lists should be zapped but thats just me.
>>>>
>>>>On Friday 27 August 2010 12:19:03 John Gorentz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Today I had users report to me that even though they had never created a
>>>>>block list in the past, one has been spontaneously generated for them.
>>>>>This didn't happen to me, and I'm not sure I believe all the
>>>>>protestations of people who say they never, ever created one, but I
>>>>>believe some of them. Has anyone else noticed this? (I didn't help
>>>>>matters because I didn't read the technical note that's linked to on the
>>>>>web page, and so didn't warn our users about the problem discussed here.
>>>>> I figured the note on the web page was adequate notification. But it
>>>>>wasn't for those users who rarely touch webmail.)
>>>>>
>>>>>John Gorentz
>>>>>W.K. Kellogg Biological Station
>>>>>
>>>>>At 11:32 AM 8/20/2010, STeve Andre' wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Friday 20 August 2010 11:16:11 Leo Sell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We are investigating further. At this point I can advise you all that
>>>>>>>there was no corruption of data during the migration and we are
>>>>>>>reviewing the data sources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ATS will issue further explanatory information when it becomes
>>>>>>>available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Um, Leo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it isn't corruption so much as a mess-up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I saw entries in my accept list that I did not add. Others have seen
>>>>>>things in their block list. At this point I think it is undeniable
>>>>>>that something bad happened. Not horridly bad, but bad enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ATS needs to make some kind of announcement now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It isn't like I've not done things like this, myself. I once switched
>>>>>>several thousands of users to a new version of a shell, except my
>>>>>>script got the logic wrong: users who wern't using that shell got the
>>>>>>upgrade, and those that needed it, didn't get it.... (oops)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--STeve Andre'
>>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>STeve Andre'
>>>>Disease Control Warden
>>>>Dept. of Political Science
>>>>Michigan State University
>>>>
>>>>A day without Windows is like a day without a nuclear incident.
|