Subject: Re: SSHD: error initializing windows sockets if I use ".ssh/authorized_keys"
From: Tino Lange <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:57:54 +0100

Hi again, Corinna!

Hmmm, it seems we're more talking about other things than SSH - but it's
really quite interesting.
That's why I'd like to respond to your last mail from this afternoon.

> > a) maybe the information was already enough for you to locate the problem
> No.
OK. That's why you "asked" for the "cygcheck.out" -- in a very special
way :-)
And you recieved it immediately.

> > b) "[email-masked]" is a huge list - I don't want to spam lots of
> > people with this information - if someone needs it I can send it to him
> > personally I don't like to recieve lot's of cygcheck.out a day as a
> > public reader of this list myself.

> It's one (better: the) purpose of the cygwin ML to send bug reports here
> and to receive help if somebody actually knows a solution.

Yes, that's also exactly what I think!

Bug reports. Bug descriptions. Questions. Sharing of knowledge. Of
course!
That's what mailing lists are for and that's why they are so efficient. 

Such a mailinglist is 
a) for finding together (the one who needs help with those who maybe can
help)
b) for discussing solutions/problems and so on
c) for *archiving* and searching for similar bugs or if maybe someone
else has the same problem - a kind of "database" to protect you as the
maintainers to answer the same questions twice or more

But that really doesn't mean that every message has to contain a huge
attachment with this detailed information which is send to *ALL*
maintainers and to *ALL* interested readers and archived forever in
*ALL* archives. The interesting part for the mailinglist is the part
besides cygcheck.out:
- a clear description of the problem, that is GOOGLE'able
- maybe: some interesting conversation
- a clear solution that summarizes and again is well GOGGLE'able

> > c) cygcheck.out can contain *lots* of personal information. I don't want
> > Microsoft to spy on my computer why should I broadcast such information
> > by myself actively on a mailinglist that's very huge, get's archived and
> > so on?????

> > I have no Problem sending this file to you, Corinna, or some of your
> Perhaps, but *I* have problems with getting PM about Cygwin stuff.
> Did you read the section "Shouldn't I just send email to straight to a
> cygwin developer or package maintainer?", especially the "Reply-To:"
> passage?

Of course I have read this part! And I agree!
I didn't propose to send *questions* to you or other maintainers
personally, or?
Maybe you misunderstood me? I didn't want "private" support - just you
and me. No!

I really like mailing lists - I only spoke about the "cygcheck.out"
Details which don't belong to the list in my opinion.

My understanding of the procedure was:

I ask on the mailinglist, to find someone who maybe can help.
The more detailed my question is the more chance I have to find someone,
of course...

If now someone like you says: "Hey, I saw the topic and the
description.  That's maybe something for me - I'll have a look at that,
please send me all those details from cycheck.out!" then we still *only*
use the mailinglist as basis and platform for communication - not
personal email-accounts - only exception is the cygcheck.out that should
be sent to the counterpart via a special email-account. Why sent these
25kByte to **thousands** of reciepients that are mostly not interested
in it (but maybe in the text-part of the mail)?

"[email-masked]" has really *much* traffic. Thank god that not every
mail has a "cygcheck.out" attachement!
I think I would unsubscribe very fast as public reader although I like
to read the mail-bodys itself.

> > You just got it with separate mail.
> No, I didn't so far and I don't want to get PM further on.  This is the
> reason I'm setting the Reply-To: to the ML and not using my real mail
> address.

Meanwhile it should be there, or?
By the way: I bet "corinna-cygwin" is not you real PM, or? It's a
special cygwinlist email work-account and that's perfectly right.

Hope this clears up things a bit.
I really don't want to change some common behaviour here but on the
other hand I don't think it's right to ignore me / my questions  - or to
just treat me with your "have you read our FAQ" if I just deliver the
cygcheck.out differently. 

Best regards again

Tino

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/