MSU Listserv


MSUNAG Archives

MSUNAG Archives


MSUNAG@LIST.MSU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV at MSU

LISTSERV at MSU

MSUNAG Home

MSUNAG Home

MSUNAG  August 2010

MSUNAG August 2010

Subject:

Re: Question about mail.msu.edu block lists

From:

Gary Schrock <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Gary Schrock <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:12:11 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

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.

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.
>>>        
>
>
>    

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2023
June 2023
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
December 2021
January 2019
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager