 |
 |
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.