[pmwiki-users] AuthUser and admin password

[Mark Trumpold]

Thanks Pico


On 1/10/06 4:18 PM, "Pico" <pmwiki at ben-amotz.com> wrote:

> IchBin wrote:
> [snip]
>>> On 28/9/06 
>> Mark Trumpold wrote:
>>> Thanks for the quick reply.
>>> 
>>> So I just edit the page. I will give it a whirl.
>>> 
>>> A couple of concerns, wont people be able to see this page?
>>> Is this site wide authentication?
>>> The '@admins' you included is that for a  group?
>>> 
>>> Thanks Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>> [reordered message]
>> 
>> Mark don't TOP POST it makes this message hard to read if looking at it
>> for the first time and later.
>> 
>> I think I can answer you but hard finding the question because of order.
>> 
> 
> IchBin, it sounds like you are really rubbing Mark's nose in it by
> re-ordering part of the thread, offering that you can answer the
> question, and then not offering any answer because it would be hard
> because of the order.
> 
> I don't want to start another extended thread about posting etiquette
> like we had last year.  Maybe the best way to avoid that (or start a
> dialog)  is to begin with where we ended up last year, with Pm's post:
> 
> - - - -
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.wiki.pmwiki.user/26424/focus=26531
> - - - -
> 
> I'm amazed how long this thread has wrong.  It appears some sort
> of statement from me is indeed needed.
> 
> Like PmWiki, HTML, and all sorts of other protocols, I tend to follow
> the "be liberal in what you accept and strict in what you produce"
> guideline.  I think the mailing list should do the same.  I definitely
> don't want to make people feel unwelcome simply because they aren't
> aware of various forms of email etiquette.
> 
> In general I prefer plain text emails, and inline responses
> (with liberal deletion of quoted text).  But these aren't hard-and-fast
> rules -- there are times when top-posting can be acceptable, e.g.,
> when making a relatively short response to an entire message as
> opposed to the individual points within the message.  For example,
> 
>      I think everything said in this thread is wrong.
> 
>      On December 25, 2005 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>> ....
> 
> is probably better than having to get to the bottom of
> 
>      On December 25, 2005 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>> ......
>> [300 lines of quoted text, none of it cut]
>> ......
> 
>      I think everything said above is wrong.
> 
> When responding to a message, I also tend to respond in the same
> form as the original, so that if someone top-posts in a message
> to me, then I top-post back (unless I'm replying to individual
> points of the message, in which case I'll use inlined responses).
> 
> As far as HTML vs plain text is concerned, I think it's useful
> to advise people that plain text is preferred, but we don't
> have to be strict about it.  If it's inconvenient for someone
> to post in plain text (and there are times where this is the
> case) I'd still prefer to see their post in HTML as opposed to
> not-at-all.
> 
> I like for PmWiki to be as forgiving and accepting an environment
> as it can be, and this extends to the mailing list.  We can advise
> people of better ways to do things, but failing to do so shouldn't
> be cause for exclusion.
> 
> Individuals are of course free to do what they want -- if
> someone wants to ignore all HTML or top-posted emails, that's
> perfectly okay.  Ultimately we can rely on community standards
> to take effect -- over time, people who fail to follow the standards
> tend to get ignored.
> 
> (Side story: On some other lists I subscribe to, I
> automatically delete or ignore posts from some authors simply
> because I know from past history that over half of their posts
> will quote a long sequence of messages, and then have a short
> one paragraph (and unhelpful) response at the bottom.  If they
> at least put their stuff at the top I'd at least scan it,
> but as it is now I figure if it's not worth their time to make
> it easy for me to read, it's not worth my time to read it.)
> 
> Pm
> - - - -
> 
> Pico