The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0370 Monday, 13 July 2009
[1] From: Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 10 Jul 2009 07:46:13 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
[2] From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 9 Jul 2009 18:26:12 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
[3] From: Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 10 Jul 2009 12:01:31 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
[4] From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, July 13, 2009
Subj: The Future of listserv Technology: Update
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 10 Jul 2009 07:46:13 -0700
Subject: 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
I would only like to respond to one comment here, from Thomas Le:
>Blogs are musings of individuals who know they do not have to exercise
>restraint and self-control or caution that an academic lister does. There
>is no control of topics or participants.
This simply isn't true. There are thousands of academics using blogs in
an extremely responsible and illuminating manner, there are very
high-level discussions ongoing in many blogs' comment threads, blog
software provides all the control over topics or participants that a
moderator might wish to exert, and I would add that blogs provide
advanced, well worked-out tools to manage the whole process without the
many technical difficulties that I, at least, find it quite painful to
see Hardy dealing with quite constantly.
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 9 Jul 2009 18:26:12 -0400
Subject: 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
Hardy comments sadly,
>If listserv technology is dying as a means for delivering worthwhile
>content is it in part because of overzealous anti-spamming technology
>whose protocols are falsely "blacklisting" mass mailings from listserv
>servers.
Perhaps it is time for several key SHAKSPER people (certainly Hardy and
Eric but possibly 1-3 others who serve on one or more of the "editorial"
boards noted in Hardy's post) to request some sort of real or virtual
meeting w/ the honchos from Trend Micro and the other major perpetrators
of the "we won't bother verifying; we'll just block this listserv"
attacks. They need to hear directly from you folks about why they're
doing something so egregiously wrong.
In fact, a starting place might be to determine a contact person at each
of these companies and send to them copies of several of your essays
about SHAKSPER and the internet, Hardy. I'm guessing these people are
intelligent and educated enough actually to process and grasp what
SHAKSPER is, if given the information.
It can't *hurt* and it might help.
The other thing that might help is if you still have the email addresses
that were deleted because of bouncebacks. Establish a GMail account in
the name of SHAKSPER and Hardy Cook (like SHAKSPER-HardyCook!) and send
out emails to these people explaining the bounceback and letting them
know you want to get them back to our listserv conversations. Such
emails can be sent in batches of 4-5 by several people connected with
SHAKSPER who can be given the password to the GMail account. I say GMail
b/c I've never had my emails from GMail blocked, so far as I can determine.
Mari Bonomi
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 10 Jul 2009 12:01:31 -0700
Subject: 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
The days of listserv are numbered. The social networks are only one
element of many that has already replaced it. The others are discussion
groups and forums like Google Groups and Yahoo Groups, which allow for
online discussion as well as the same email exchanges listserv provides
(not to mention any modern forum software will do the same, allowing
users to subscribe to specific topics of interest). Users are demanding
more and more that their preferred content be served up when, where, and
primarily HOW they want it. They want to customized the frequency and
depth of their involvement (usually due to time constraints in this busy
world of ours)-not to mention the ability to apply various "noise
filters" to reduce or eliminate "junk." I don't mean that in the sense
of spam, but in unwanted content-increasing the signal to noise ratio,
so to speak-where the users get to set that level/ratio based on their
preferences. The inability of listserv to adapt to the way content is
currently ingested and life's inevitable course of change is the key to
its demise. The technology is antiquated-in some parts so much that
certain spam-detection algorithms will always assume it's spam unless
some very specific manual tweaking is conducted.
Those who have their proverbial heads in the sand should consider
embracing change as an evolution and progress, rather than an
inconvenience. I've made several offers to help this list overcome these
challenges and make it competitive with current technologies, but my
offers haven't shown any interest. With our site rapidly approaching
3,000 registered users from all walks of life-university professors,
high-school students, directors, actors, etc.-it's an example of how a
Shakespeare resource can grow larger than a 20-year old resource in just
2 years.
I hope that SHAKSPER continues to grow, evolve, and prosper well into
the future. It's a great resource. But I'm afraid that, without some
technology improvements, that won't happen.
Best,
Ron Severdia
PlayShakespeare.com
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, July 13, 2009
Subject: The Future of listserv Technology: Update
Dear SHAKSPEReans,
I managed finally to get in touch with a living person rather than
playing the Internet equivalent of telephone tag with automatic-response
computer-generated messages. Once I got to a person rather than a
computer, I was able to convince the person that the "blocking" was a
"false positive" and that protocols that create "false positives" are
ultimately bad for business. This block was removed within 48 hours. So
I was able to add Comcast subscribers and others whose IP providers use
the Trend Micro MAPS back to the distribution list. After one headache
was solved, I noticed that a number of UK subscribers were being
blocked. My hope is that this blocking is related to the other and will
not be a problem today. If not, I have to go back into response mode.
Mari above makes suggestions about methods for responding when SHAKSPER
mailings are blocked. She will be pleased to learn that I follow similar
procedures to the ones she suggests. However, the task of responding to
times when the SHAKSPER mailings are block is a time-consuming and
frustrating process. One of my hopes is that when we migrate the server
from DSL to fiber optics and get a new static IP address for the server
that, at least, for a while some of the methods that SPAMMER use that
result in anti-spamming software companies "blacklisting" SHAKSPER will
be reduced.
>Perhaps it is time for several key SHAKSPER people (certainly Hardy
>and Eric but possibly 1-3 others who serve on one or more of the
>"editorial" boards noted in Hardy's post) to request some sort of real
>or virtual meeting w/ the honchos from Trend Micro and the other
>major perpetrators of the "we won't bother verifying; we'll just block
>this listserv" attacks. They need to hear directly from you folks about
>why they're doing something so egregiously wrong. . . .
>The other thing that might help is if you still have the email addresses
>that were deleted because of bouncebacks.
I, in fact, asked subscribers who were blocked to contact their ISP and
let those in charge know that SHAKSPER mailings are legitimate.
Ron Severdia writes,
>The days of listserv are numbered. The social networks are only one
>element of many that has already replaced it. The others are discussion
>groups and forums like Google Groups and Yahoo Groups, which allow for
>online discussion as well as the same email exchanges listserv provides
>(not to mention any modern forum software will do the same, allowing
>users to subscribe to specific topics of interest). Users are demanding
>more and more that their preferred content be served up when, where, and
>primarily HOW they want it. They want to customized the frequency and
>depth of their involvement (usually due to time constraints in this busy
>world of ours) -- not to mention the ability to apply various "noise
>filters" to reduce or eliminate "junk." I don't mean that in the sense of
>spam, but in unwanted content -- increasing the signal to noise ratio, so
>to speak -- where the users get to set that level/ratio based on their
>preferences. The inability of listserv to adapt to the way content is
>currently ingested and life's inevitable course of change is the key to
>its demise. The technology is antiquated -- in some parts so much that
>certain spam-detection algorithms will always assume it's spam unless
>some very specific manual tweaking is conducted.
>Those who have their proverbial heads in the sand should consider
>embracing change as an evolution and progress, rather than an
>inconvenience. I've made several offers to help this list overcome these
>challenges and make it competitive with current technologies, but my
>offers haven't shown any interest. With our site rapidly approaching
>3,000 registered users from all walks of life -- university professors,
>high-school students, directors, actors, etc. -- it's an example of how a
>Shakespeare resource can grow larger than a 20-year old resource in just
>2 years.
Ron may be correct. However, for 20 years SHAKSPER has been an integral
part of my life. I acknowledge that SHAKSPER is not for everyone.
However, it is important to me that I have control over what I post to
the subscribers and how that content looks. For better or whose,
SHAKSPER is identified with me. I am not interested in being all things
to all people; I am not interested in being large just to be large; and
I am content that those who are interested in the features that Ron has
to offer will registered at PlayShakespeare.com just as those who are
interested in discussing the "authorship question" can do so somewhere else.
I will entertain ANY suggestions that Ron would like to make to me about
ways that SHAKSPER can be improved as I do with everyone. But for good
or bad, SHAKSPER has become the service that is associated with me and
that has opened all of the professions doors I have walked through and
that is responsible for my knowing the wonderful Shakespearean I have
met and known over the years.
SHAKSPER may be going the way of the dinosaurs. And when that is about
to happen, I will pass it off to someone else who can mine the petroleum
products for all they are worth.
For now, I have made my choices about SHAKSPER immediate future and will
live with those choices, accepting the challenges I have to face as a
consequence.
Hardy M. Cook
Editor of SHAKSPER
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.