Openoffice Security Issue
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Openoffice Security Issue
by Ahamed Fasudeen
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Team,
I'm newly use openoffice...I have some query realted for password security. Currently i'm using MSoffice2003. In that i have protect the sheet & workbook And i have protect the cell A2:C22(attached sheet) with password range,in msoffice2003 once i click the A2:C22(cell) it will pop-up password box once i give the password it will allow to enter the data. And in D2:D22 with out range password user will edit without password. When i use to open the msoffice speared sheet to openoffice... entire restriction was removed by calc(openoffice) i don't why it was happen....with less security in open office. Could you please provide me the fix for this issue.... -- Regards, Ahamed 9740843336 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Openoffice Security Issue
by Gallomimia
::
Rate this Message:
Upon investigating this attachment, I have found that the entire sheet
is protected, which is easily removed without any password. I cannot find any way to protect only a given range of cells with OOoCalc. There is no respect for the security added by MSO2k3 and no way to protect only a given range of cells, which this document clearly demonstrates an example of the use of such a feature. This is not the first time I have heard of this issue. I do believe there is an issue in the issue tracker open on this subject. Some have said that the issue does not exist, but I can see that it does. I have used OOo 3.1 RC2 for PPC-Mac, en-GB to do this testing. I have also tested with OOo 320m2 for PPC-Mac en-US and the result is the same. On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Ahamed Fasudeen <ah.deen@...> wrote: > Hi Team, > > I'm newly use openoffice...I have some query realted for password security. > > Currently i'm using MSoffice2003. In that i have protect the sheet & > workbook > > And i have protect the cell A2:C22(attached sheet) with password range,in > msoffice2003 once i click > the A2:C22(cell) it will pop-up password box once i give the password it > will allow to enter > the data. And in D2:D22 with out range password user will edit without > password. > > When i use to open the msoffice speared sheet to openoffice... entire > restriction was removed by calc(openoffice) > > i don't why it was happen....with less security in open office. > > Could you please provide me the fix for this issue.... > > -- > Regards, > Ahamed > 9740843336 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openoffice Security Issue
by Ahamed Fasudeen
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Team,
I'm using openoffice 3.1.1 Could you please try xls first then only you come to know what its happen..... password protection for sheet & work is : password According to your mail i know it was in openoffice.... but i need to known what about cell range protection, why it was disable by openoffice? Herewith I'm attached entire screen shot FYI....i hope it will help you to understand. Thanks in advance On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Harold Fuchs <hwfa.openoffice@...> wrote: Brian Barker wrote: -- Regards, Ahamed 9740843336 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Openoffice Security Issue
by Brian Barker
::
Rate this Message:
At 20:38 29/10/2009 +0000, Harold Fuchs wrote:
>Brian Barker wrote: >>[...] >Forwarding to unsubscribed OP. *Please* don't do this. I knew what I was doing: my reply did not address the initial questioner's query, but only that of the person I quoted, who *is* subscribed. If you wish, why not answer the original questioner yourself? And my apologies for troubling everyone else by distributing 2500 useless copies of this message - which I need to do only because you say you will not read your own mail. Brian Barker --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openoffice Security Issue
by NoOp-4
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/29/2009 01:38 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
> Forwarding to unsubscribed OP. > When you do this do you include information regarding the list, how to use the list, that the OP should reply to the list, not to reply to the forwarded responder directly etc., etc? If not I'd recommend that you leave the 'forwarding' to the responder and instead just post a reminder that the OP is not subscribed & that the OP most likely will not have recevied the response. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
|
|
|
Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by Harold Fuchs-2
::
Rate this Message:
NoOp wrote:
> On 10/29/2009 01:38 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote: > > >> Forwarding to unsubscribed OP. >> >> > > When you do this do you include information regarding the list, how to > use the list, that the OP should reply to the list, not to reply to the > forwarded responder directly etc., etc? Sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. > If not I'd recommend that you > leave the 'forwarding' to the responder and instead just post a reminder > that the OP is not subscribed & that the OP most likely will not have > recevied the response. > > > If I "post a reminder ..." that's yet another message in the thread. Seems simpler just to forward directly. I'm working on the assumptions that the responder wants the OP to see the response (why else respond?) and that the responder either hasn't seen that the OP is not subscribed or simply forgot to cc the OP. I have to say I thought I was doing us a favour. I'll stop. But I think that a lot of unsubscribed OPs will be left with the impression that the support for OOo is pretty poor - no responses to even simple questions; roughly what you'd expect from other makers of office software. -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to users@... |
|
|
Re: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by John Kaufmann
::
Rate this Message:
Harold,
In a message dated 2009.11.01 05:52 -0500, Harold Fuchs wrote: > I'm working on the assumptions that the responder wants the OP to see > the response (why else respond?) and that the responder either > hasn't seen that the OP is not subscribed or simply forgot to cc the > OP. I have to say I thought I was doing us a favour. I'll stop. But I > think that a lot of unsubscribed OPs will be left with the impression > that the support for OOo is pretty poor - no responses to even simple > questions; roughly what you'd expect from other makers of office > software. Exactly. Since joining this list, I have always admired your selfless and tireless willingness to try (in addition to answering questions) to maximize consideration for all involved - including those who have not (yet, at least) joined the list. This is certainly a better place for that attitude. Yet the recent exchange between you and Brian, whom I also admire, was a reminder that the best of intentions may be no substitute for arranging the world, as far as possible, to avoid problems rather than correct them. I wonder if our efforts would not be better spent trying to change the list management to minimize this recurring problem, by simply requiring users to join the list before posting. The alternative - what we have now - simply seems perverse. John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by Harold Fuchs-2
::
Rate this Message:
John Kaufmann wrote:
> Harold, > > In a message dated 2009.11.01 05:52 -0500, Harold Fuchs wrote: > >> I'm working on the assumptions that the responder wants the OP to see >> the response (why else respond?) and that the responder either >> hasn't seen that the OP is not subscribed or simply forgot to cc the >> OP. I have to say I thought I was doing us a favour. I'll stop. But I >> think that a lot of unsubscribed OPs will be left with the impression >> that the support for OOo is pretty poor - no responses to even simple >> questions; roughly what you'd expect from other makers of office >> software. > > Exactly. Since joining this list, I have always admired your selfless > and tireless willingness to try (in addition to answering questions) > to maximize consideration for all involved - including those who have > not (yet, at least) joined the list. This is certainly a better place > for that attitude. Yet the recent exchange between you and Brian, > whom I also admire, was a reminder that the best of intentions may be > no substitute for arranging the world, as far as possible, to avoid > problems rather than correct them. I wonder if our efforts would not > be better spent trying to change the list management to minimize this > recurring problem, by simply requiring users to join the list before > posting. The alternative - what we have now - simply seems perverse. > > John > I agree with your thoughts about changing the list management but I don't think we can win that battle; others have tried in the past and met complete silence from apparently everyone who might be able actually to do something rather than just talk about it. As I see it what we want is for "Reply all" to work so that if someone uses it the unsubscribed OP's address is automatically included in the To: list of the reply. As far as I know, the reason "Reply all" doesn't work is that the management software (ezmlm) has been configured to send its messages out with a "Reply to" address which then overrides the responder's mail program's default behaviour. Perhaps one of the moderators can tell us why this cannot be changed. Or ??? -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to users@... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by NoOp-4
::
Rate this Message:
On 11/01/2009 02:52 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
> NoOp wrote: >> On 10/29/2009 01:38 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote: >> >> >>> Forwarding to unsubscribed OP. >>> >>> >> >> When you do this do you include information regarding the list, how to >> use the list, that the OP should reply to the list, not to reply to the >> forwarded responder directly etc., etc? > > Sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I'm trying to point out that if you merely forward the post to the unsub without providing any boilerplate/information regarding the list, how to use the list, how to view responses, and not advising the unsub that replies/responses should go back to users@... rather than to you or the forwarded poster, you are doing the unsub and the list a disservice. How's that for a run-on sentence :-) The person that you've forwarded the list reply to has *no* clue about this list as is obvious by the unsubscribed post. Now you hop along and forward replier X's reply to the unsub. Probably goes along something like this: Unsub: > From: Walt <snipped> > Subject: Problems > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:37:17 -0400 > ... > Delivered-To: mailing list users@... > Delivered-To: moderator for users@... > ... > > Openoffice.org 3 > > Two questions: > > I cannot register. or login to the openoffice.org site. Why is this a > problem? > > and > > Using "Base" I have a form that seems to w2ork, but when I try to copy > it to the base form I get the following" Violation of unique > SYS_PK63:duplicate value(s) for column(s) "Date" in statement [INSERT > INTO "IRP" ("Cash Amount","DAte", Income Category") VALUES (?,?,?)] > > What is wrong? > > Walt Forward from Harold: > From: responder <snipped - but would include both your email address as well as the responder's email address> > Subject: Problems > Date: > Don't know dude, why don't you just use MS Windows Office? etc. You see; there is no information from you that advises the unsub that: 1) they have submitted information to a users mailing list, 2) that the reply/forward back from you is comming from the mailing list, 3) that they should not respond or reply to you or the person you've forwarded the reply from (without their permission), 4) what the OOo mailing list is about, where to find helpful information, that the users forum migt be a better place to ask questions, how to use OOo Support (http://support.openoffice.org/index.html) etc., etc., etc. How on earth do you expect the unsub to know where your forwarded reply came from and how to respond? I'm surprised that you are not on multiple spam block lists. Put yourself in their position; they post to the list without knowing they are posting to a list. They get back a 'forwarded' response from you (that may, or may not, contain helpful information), they've no clue as to how to respond or reply to you or the list, and if they respond to the 'forwarded' poster directly they may very well get dropped in the spam/bin/dev/null bucket. Just how does any of that help OOo or the unsub? >> If not I'd recommend that you >> leave the 'forwarding' to the responder and instead just post a reminder >> that the OP is not subscribed & that the OP most likely will not have >> recevied the response. . > If I "post a reminder ..." that's yet another message in the thread. > Seems simpler just to forward directly. That's no more than: Forwarding to unsubscribed OP. now is it? > > I'm working on the assumptions that the responder wants the OP to see > the response (why else respond?) and that the responder either hasn't > seen that the OP is not subscribed or simply forgot to cc the OP. > > I have to say I thought I was doing us a favour. I'll stop. Please do, unless you also provide the added info I've suggested (and I'd very much recommend removing the forwarded posters email information as well - insisting that any further replies should be directed to users@...). > But I think > that a lot of unsubscribed OPs will be left with the impression that the > support for OOo is pretty poor - no responses to even simple questions; > roughly what you'd expect from other makers of office software. I think that *many* potential users may have already been left with the impression that you are some form of official reply/service directly from OOo. When such unsub's reply to you do you reply to them directly, and if so, do you then advise them of the list etc? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Re: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by Harold Fuchs-2
::
Rate this Message:
2009/11/2 NoOp <glgxg@...>
> On 11/01/2009 02:52 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote: > > NoOp wrote: > >> On 10/29/2009 01:38 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Forwarding to unsubscribed OP. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> When you do this do you include information regarding the list, how to > >> use the list, that the OP should reply to the list, not to reply to the > >> forwarded responder directly etc., etc? > > > > Sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. > > I'm trying to point out that if you merely forward the post to the unsub > without providing any boilerplate/information regarding the list, how to > use the list, how to view responses, and not advising the unsub that > replies/responses should go back to users@... rather than to > you or the forwarded poster, you are doing the unsub and the list a > disservice. How's that for a run-on sentence :-) > > The person that you've forwarded the list reply to has *no* clue about > this list as is obvious by the unsubscribed post. Now you hop along and > forward replier X's reply to the unsub. Probably goes along something > like this: > > Unsub: > > From: Walt <snipped> > > Subject: Problems > > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:37:17 -0400 > > ... > > Delivered-To: mailing list users@... > > Delivered-To: moderator for users@... > > ... > > > > Openoffice.org 3 > > > > Two questions: > > > > I cannot register. or login to the openoffice.org site. Why is this a > > problem? > > > > and > > > > Using "Base" I have a form that seems to w2ork, but when I try to copy > > it to the base form I get the following" Violation of unique > > SYS_PK63:duplicate value(s) for column(s) "Date" in statement [INSERT > > INTO "IRP" ("Cash Amount","DAte", Income Category") VALUES (?,?,?)] > > > > What is wrong? > > > > Walt > > Forward from Harold: > > From: responder <snipped - but would include both your email address > as well as the responder's email address> > > Subject: Problems > > Date: > > Don't know dude, why don't you just use MS Windows Office? > etc. > No. I don't forward such meningless garbage. I only foward what I deem to be (how's that for arrogance) useful information from good sources. > > You see; there is no information from you that advises the unsub that: > 1) they have submitted information to a users mailing list, > 2) that the > reply/forward back from you is comming from the mailing list, It isn't. It's coming from an individual person and I am forwarding it. That's how e-mail works. Newbies understand that because it happens to them all the time. > 3) that > they should not respond or reply to you or the person you've forwarded > the reply from (without their permission), See my sig. > 4) what the OOo mailing list > is about, where to find helpful information, that the users forum migt > be a better place to ask questions, how to use OOo Support > (http://support.openoffice.org/index.html) etc., etc., etc. > They have already been to the web site. How else did they find our address? > > How on earth do you expect the unsub to know where your forwarded reply > came from and how to respond? I'm surprised that you are not on multiple > spam block lists. > It's an e-mail. The unsub hits the reply button. I think even the dumbest unsub knows that. > Put yourself in their position; they post to the list without knowing > they are posting to a list. They get back a 'forwarded' response from > you (that may, or may not, contain helpful information), See above; I won't forward useless stuff. > they've no clue > as to how to respond or reply to you or the list, and if they respond to > the 'forwarded' poster directly they may very well get dropped in the > spam/bin/dev/null bucket. > > Just how does any of that help OOo or the unsub? > The unsub gets what s/he would have got from the original *responder* had that responder put the unsub's e-mail address in the To: or cc: list of his/her reply. Why don't you ask the same questions of *anyone* who replies to an unsub? > > > >> If not I'd recommend that you > >> leave the 'forwarding' to the responder and instead just post a reminder > >> that the OP is not subscribed & that the OP most likely will not have > >> recevied the response. > . > > If I "post a reminder ..." that's yet another message in the thread. > > Seems simpler just to forward directly. > > That's no more than: > > Forwarding to unsubscribed OP. > > now is it? > It's an *extra* message. > > > > > I'm working on the assumptions that the responder wants the OP to see > > the response (why else respond?) and that the responder either hasn't > > seen that the OP is not subscribed or simply forgot to cc the OP. > > > > I have to say I thought I was doing us a favour. I'll stop. > > Please do, unless you also provide the added info I've suggested (and > I'd very much recommend removing the forwarded posters email information > as well - insisting that any further replies should be directed to > users@...). > > > But I think > > that a lot of unsubscribed OPs will be left with the impression that the > > support for OOo is pretty poor - no responses to even simple questions; > > roughly what you'd expect from other makers of office software. > > I think that *many* potential users may have already been left with the > impression that you are some form of official reply/service directly > from OOo. When such unsub's reply to you do you reply to them directly, > and if so, do you then advise them of the list etc? > > > > You are making the assumption that all unsubs are complete dummies. They physicists or brain surgeons or whatever who are trying to use OOo and don't really care about the internal workings of mail lists, usenet, forums or whatever. The OOo web site gives them a mailto: link. They click it. Very sensible. And all they get back is abuse like "Why the *&^% haven't you subscribed? Don't you &%$£* well know what a mail list is? Are you completely witless? Go back to M$ and don't bother me with your idiotic blatherings". No. Thank you. But, as I've said. I'll stop. Shame though. -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to users@... |
|
|
RE: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by McLauchlan, Kevin
::
Rate this Message:
John Kaufmann [mailto:kaufmann@...] wisely said: > Harold, > > In a message dated 2009.11.01 05:52 -0500, Harold Fuchs wrote: > > > I'm working on the assumptions that the responder wants the > OP to see > > the response (why else respond?) and that the responder either > > hasn't seen that the OP is not subscribed or simply forgot to cc the > > OP. I have to say I thought I was doing us a favour. I'll > stop. But I > > think that a lot of unsubscribed OPs will be left with the > impression > > that the support for OOo is pretty poor - no responses to > even simple > > questions; roughly what you'd expect from other makers of office > > software. > > Exactly. Since joining this list, I have always admired your selfless > and tireless willingness to try (in addition to answering > questions) to > maximize consideration for all involved - including those who > have not > (yet, at least) joined the list. This is certainly a better > place for > that attitude. Yet the recent exchange between you and Brian, whom I > also admire, was a reminder that the best of intentions may be no > substitute for arranging the world, as far as possible, to avoid > problems rather than correct them. I wonder if our efforts > would not be > better spent trying to change the list management to minimize this > recurring problem, by simply requiring users to join the list before > posting. The alternative - what we have now - simply seems perverse. Consider this a "me too" on all counts. The "Brian" correct-answer-auto-responder almost never fails. I think he'd a have perfect record if he didn't purposely goof one answer in 500, just so the rest of us won't feel entirely intimidated. :-) And Harold is right up there as one of the most consistently willing and knowledgeable and helpful people I've encountered... and not just on this list. As for the issue of allowing people to post without subscribing, I think it's a recipe for trouble as currently implemented. How many other lists allow that? When I respond to a post, I hit "Reply" then start trimming text and writing my own... trying to remember to not top-post. It never even occurs to me that somebody using the listserver to send to me (and to all you folks) is not getting mail that is posted to the list. I shouldn't have to care. On other lists (I'm subscribed to several, on various topics) I don't have to care. It's only ever been an issue on this list. If we want to keep outsiders able to post, do we at least have an auto-response that goes directly to the sender, telling them that the people most likely to be responding will respond only to the list, and if they don't join they are unlikely to see 95% of replies? Or, is there a way to have the list-server automatically CC: any poster on all messages that contain their originating subject line? THAT would solve a lot of the "unsubscribe me" problems. Non-members needing help would see list mail that pertained to their query, but would never see all the other topics-of-little-interest that flood a subscriber's inbox. Even if a feature like that could be instituted, I'd remain a member because I learn so much from all sorts of threads. But many people want just the answer to the big hairy problem that's got them stuck right now. Other people's problems and opinions are just clutter. - Kevin The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by The Beaver
::
Rate this Message:
McLauchlan, Kevin wrote:
> > John Kaufmann [mailto:kaufmann@...] wisely said: > > >> Harold, >> >> In a message dated 2009.11.01 05:52 -0500, Harold Fuchs wrote: >> >> >>> I'm working on the assumptions that the responder wants the >>> >> OP to see >> >>> the response (why else respond?) and that the responder either >>> hasn't seen that the OP is not subscribed or simply forgot to cc the >>> OP. I have to say I thought I was doing us a favour. I'll >>> >> stop. But I >> >>> think that a lot of unsubscribed OPs will be left with the >>> >> impression >> >>> that the support for OOo is pretty poor - no responses to >>> >> even simple >> >>> questions; roughly what you'd expect from other makers of office >>> software. >>> >> Exactly. Since joining this list, I have always admired your selfless >> and tireless willingness to try (in addition to answering >> questions) to >> maximize consideration for all involved - including those who >> have not >> (yet, at least) joined the list. This is certainly a better >> place for >> that attitude. Yet the recent exchange between you and Brian, whom I >> also admire, was a reminder that the best of intentions may be no >> substitute for arranging the world, as far as possible, to avoid >> problems rather than correct them. I wonder if our efforts >> would not be >> better spent trying to change the list management to minimize this >> recurring problem, by simply requiring users to join the list before >> posting. The alternative - what we have now - simply seems perverse. >> > > Consider this a "me too" on all counts. > > The "Brian" correct-answer-auto-responder almost never fails. > I think he'd a have perfect record if he didn't purposely goof > one answer in 500, just so the rest of us won't feel entirely intimidated. :-) > > And Harold is right up there as one of the most consistently > willing and knowledgeable and helpful people I've encountered... > and not just on this list. > > As for the issue of allowing people to post without subscribing, > I think it's a recipe for trouble as currently implemented. > > How many other lists allow that? > > When I respond to a post, I hit "Reply" then start trimming text > and writing my own... trying to remember to not top-post. > > It never even occurs to me that somebody using the listserver > to send to me (and to all you folks) is not getting mail that is > posted to the list. I shouldn't have to care. On other lists > (I'm subscribed to several, on various topics) I don't have to > care. It's only ever been an issue on this list. > > If we want to keep outsiders able to post, do we at least have > an auto-response that goes directly to the sender, telling them > that the people most likely to be responding will respond only > to the list, and if they don't join they are unlikely to see 95% > of replies? > > Or, is there a way to have the list-server automatically CC: any > poster on all messages that contain their originating subject line? > > THAT would solve a lot of the "unsubscribe me" problems. Non-members > needing help would see list mail that pertained to their query, but > would never see all the other topics-of-little-interest that flood > a subscriber's inbox. > > Even if a feature like that could be instituted, I'd remain a member > because I learn so much from all sorts of threads. But many people > want just the answer to the big hairy problem that's got them stuck > right now. Other people's problems and opinions are just clutter. > > - Kevin > > > The information contained in this electronic mail transmission > may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected > from disclosure. If you have received this communication in > error, please notify us immediately by replying to this > message and deleting it from your computer without copying > or disclosing it. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > unless they specifically requested more permanent subscription? Their question would have been answered by then and if they simply did nothing, the massive mail would stop. They could simply click on "continue subscription" in the automatic 24 hour cancellation notice to remain subscribed. Floyd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by Barbara Duprey
::
Rate this Message:
McLauchlan, Kevin wrote:
> > John Kaufmann [mailto:kaufmann@...] wisely said: > > >> Harold, >> >> In a message dated 2009.11.01 05:52 -0500, Harold Fuchs wrote: >> >> >>> I'm working on the assumptions that the responder wants the >>> >> OP to see >> >>> the response (why else respond?) and that the responder either >>> hasn't seen that the OP is not subscribed or simply forgot to cc the >>> OP. I have to say I thought I was doing us a favour. I'll >>> >> stop. But I >> >>> think that a lot of unsubscribed OPs will be left with the >>> >> impression >> >>> that the support for OOo is pretty poor - no responses to >>> >> even simple >> >>> questions; roughly what you'd expect from other makers of office >>> software. >>> >> Exactly. Since joining this list, I have always admired your selfless >> and tireless willingness to try (in addition to answering >> questions) to >> maximize consideration for all involved - including those who >> have not >> (yet, at least) joined the list. This is certainly a better >> place for >> that attitude. Yet the recent exchange between you and Brian, whom I >> also admire, was a reminder that the best of intentions may be no >> substitute for arranging the world, as far as possible, to avoid >> problems rather than correct them. I wonder if our efforts >> would not be >> better spent trying to change the list management to minimize this >> recurring problem, by simply requiring users to join the list before >> posting. The alternative - what we have now - simply seems perverse. >> > > > Consider this a "me too" on all counts. > > The "Brian" correct-answer-auto-responder almost never fails. > I think he'd a have perfect record if he didn't purposely goof > one answer in 500, just so the rest of us won't feel entirely intimidated. :-) > > And Harold is right up there as one of the most consistently > willing and knowledgeable and helpful people I've encountered... > and not just on this list. > Absolutely! > As for the issue of allowing people to post without subscribing, > I think it's a recipe for trouble as currently implemented. > > How many other lists allow that? > Most don't -- but most also are not likely to be visited on a one-time or infrequent basis by people who are not familiar with mailing lists. Most are also much more narrowly constrained as to the audience they address. This one covers the whole office suite realm on just about every platform there is. > When I respond to a post, I hit "Reply" then start trimming text > and writing my own... trying to remember to not top-post. > > It never even occurs to me that somebody using the listserver > to send to me (and to all you folks) is not getting mail that is > posted to the list. I shouldn't have to care. On other lists > (I'm subscribed to several, on various topics) I don't have to > care. It's only ever been an issue on this list. > I've been talking about a potential way to allow you to continue with this very reasonable process - the discussion has spilled into several threads now. > If we want to keep outsiders able to post, do we at least have > an auto-response that goes directly to the sender, telling them > that the people most likely to be responding will respond only > to the list, and if they don't join they are unlikely to see 95% > of replies? > I'm not sure if we can get to the auto-response level, but there's a possible way to accomplish this without their having to subscribe, and for reasons discussed at length elsewhere, I d *not* want to encourage people to subscribe just to get the answer to one question. > Or, is there a way to have the list-server automatically CC: any > poster on all messages that contain their originating subject line? > Nothing could usefully be keyed off the subject line (they're often just something like "Help!"), but an approach that has often been suggested is to stop the list management processing from overwriting the original Reply-To header (which contains the sender's address) with the address of the list, but instead appends the list address. If everyone then always did a Reply All (instead of just Reply) the OP would get the responses. This would have to apply only to unsubscribed senders, of course, or we'd get every message doubled if we subscribed. It's also dependent on responders other than the first one (which is very nearly impossible to detect accurately) continuing to use Reply All. I prefer the archive link approach that's being discussed, because it gets us all (or almost all) out of the business of caring whether they're subscribed or not, and keeps them from subscribing unnecessarily and quite likely having an unhappy experience due to list traffic. > THAT would solve a lot of the "unsubscribe me" problems. Non-members > needing help would see list mail that pertained to their query, but > would never see all the other topics-of-little-interest that flood > a subscriber's inbox. > That's the idea behind the archive link, too -- they'd just have to follow that link periodically for a while to see the whole thread, without ever subscribing. > Even if a feature like that could be instituted, I'd remain a member > because I learn so much from all sorts of threads. But many people > want just the answer to the big hairy problem that's got them stuck > right now. Other people's problems and opinions are just clutter. > Right you are! > - Kevin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by John Kaufmann
::
Rate this Message:
In a message dated 2009.11.05 10:44 -0500, The Beaver wrote:
> What if new subscribers were automatically unsubscribed after 24 hours, > unless they specifically requested more permanent subscription? > Their question would have been answered by then and if they simply > did nothing, the massive mail would stop. They could simply click on > "continue subscription" in the automatic 24 hour cancellation notice > to remain subscribed. That's an interesting option to put in the pot - when we get the attention of the list owner and/or moderators for a discussion aimed at a resolution. [In another thread I have asked that we not pre-limit the solution set; this is a good example of why that would be premature.] When we get that discussion, I hope that we can: 1. Clearly define the problem(s), substituting facts for speculation (about issues like why some people have difficulty unsubscribing). If some part of the system is simply not working as intended, but can be fixed without disturbing anything else, that is a necessary first step. 2. Propose solutions, like yours, that in theory address the problem(s). 3. Evaluate proposed solutions for efficacy, implementation problems and unintended consequences. 4. Settle on a solution, so that we might stop wasting time on this stuff. John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Forwarding to Unsubscribed Posters (was "[users] Re: Openoffice Security Issue")
by Barbara Duprey
::
Rate this Message:
The Beaver wrote:
> <snip> > What if new subscribers were automatically unsubscribed after 24 > hours, unless they specifically requested more permanent > subscription? Their question would have been answered by then and if > they simply did nothing, the massive mail would stop. They could > simply click on "continue subscription" in the automatic 24 hour > cancellation notice to remain subscribed. > Floyd That might reduce the pain of the forced subscription, and I wondered about it myself, but I think it has a problem because of the necessary involvement of the folks in charge of list management, and likely a significant software change requirement that's probably out of the question for this project. Also, setting the period is problematic; sometimes there's a need for follow-up questions and responses (e.g., "What OS and OOo version are you using?" "Try this and tell us what you see, including error messages." -- etc., etc.) that could extend the discussion over a longish period. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
New Microsoft Excel Worksheet (2).xls (18K) 
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
