 |
 |
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.