 |
 |
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. >>> > > >