bazfoo
> It seems like a low cost to maintain people who subscribed but never loaded a tracker image.
On the contrary. Each send costs. This adds up. It also adds cost to the overall processes involved due to unbounded growth in possible recipients.
Reputation with service providers is another concern. Google, for instance, will punish a sender's deliverability if enough recipients never open emails. Failing to clean your list impacts the ability to deliver to active users.
> What percentage of your addresses never phone home?
These were an extreme outlier. Such that it's simpler to send an email communicating the pending removal unless they opt-in.
> So pruning them from your list would remove potentially lucrative customers.
These decisions aren't made in a vacuum. Links themselves are also tracked. Those users also weren't actively clicking emails either.
On the system I was cleaning up, something like 20% of outbound emails had _zero_ engagement.
Russ has proposed a "go release" command that is intended to help with that process. It's probably simple right now, but has lots of room to grow in that direction.
The risk is still there for dependencies, but it helps that the community for the most part follows "a little copying is better than a little dependency" as an adage.
The problem I ran into was where I wanted to test service restarting in a systemd based environment. Older releases using sysvinit work perfectly fine.
It would be good to see some solid data, because one thing that surprised me while travelling in the USA was the extreme poverty I saw just down the road from extremely wealthy neighborhoods.
Not to say that Australia doesn't have its own set of problems, particularly in Indigenous Communities, but this seems to operate at a wholly different level.
function semacs() {
emacsclient -t -a "" "/sudo::$(realpath $@)"
}For instance, the definition of computer[1] that is being suggested to allow monitoring of the entire internet is:
computer means all or part of:
(a) one or more computers; or
(b) one or more computer systems; or
(c) one or more computer networks;
(d) any combination of the above.
Whereas the old definition[2] was: computer means a computer, a computer system or part of a computer system.
Both of these seem equivalent in my eyes. If so, the horse seems to have already bolted years ago.Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. How does one talk to your local MP when the details of the proposed legislation are so muddy?
[1]: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...
[2]: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00613/Html/Text#_Toc3...