And fixing the verification problem with a properly built mailing list program is easy if you're using something like MajorDomo, it's the default setting once you properly install it.
In Majordomo 1, the confirmation feature is at best useless, and at worst it provides a false sense of security. Daniel J. Bernstein has this to say about it (under the section ``Subscription cookie prediction'').
I've had a look at the cookie generation code in Majordomo 1.94.5 (the current version 1 release) and it's quite trivial, given a cookie and the email address you used to get that cookie, to make a cookie for any other email address. So if the list actually allows public subscription (e.g., open+confirm), be prepared to subscribe anyone.
Some people argue that the cookie algorithm can be changed; however this is no longer the ``default setting'' that you were referring to.
In my quick perusal of the Majordomo 2 code, they have got it ``right'', in the sense that you can't just spoof the ``confirmation tokens'' (as they're called in the code), which are randomly generated (using the standard Perl rand()---I don't know how secure or insecure this is).
However, if a girl corrected them, they would reassert their correctness (wrong though it might be) until the girl backed down or gave up trying to correct them (this was especially true if the girl was pretty--which most geek women I've known are).
I'll bet any money (in Monopoly[tm] currency Of Course) that those ``jock types'' were seeking to impress---not the woman concerned by the way, only to his peers that he's not ``being beaten by a woman''.
I don't know---were you referring to a high school scenario? Two reasons why I ask:
From my experiences ``geeks'' (both men and women) I have worked with tend to be quite mature, and do not fall into such pitiful behaviour...
You mentioned ``girl''. My senses are screaming at me that either this itself was a nasty piece of social conditioning, or the situation revolved around a scenario where ``girl'' was a correct description (by virtue of age).
(Just for the record---no one will catch me dead using ``girl'' in the wrong context.:-))
Most of the geek women I've known have gone into education or communication. I think some of them would have gone into computers if there was more encouragement (not to boost their self-esteem, but to show them that they would be accepted and be able to make a contribution without a lot of battles).
I can't speak for the majority of women (I'm not even a woman myself!), but my sister and a (female) friend of hers have both chosen to take up engineering degrees. Times have changed; I don't believe that as much encouragement is needed anymore, as long as there aren't severe discouragement from (especially male) dickheads...
Oh, and for you geek women: you are awesome, and generally very attractive to us geek guys (or at least, I am very attracted to geek women). So I probably try to prove myself more to the women, and so come off a bit patronizing. I don't mean this, and I'm sure that a lot of geek guys are like this.
I really hope that the ``installed base'' of technical workers don't try to lay every woman that comes into the workplace... if they do that, it will go a long way toward explaining just why many women avoid working in technical professions.
Thanks to the person(s) who moderated up Edward's post, and Corrinne's challenge. Since I still don't have any moderator points, time to expose myself.
It was a good challenge. Independently I got up to figuring out $z$ in terms of $x$ and $y$, but being rather weak in ``three-dimensional geometry'' (I'll heartily admit to any mathematical deficiencies after dropping pure maths to become a stats weenie:-)) that was as far as I got.
I would probably ask Corrinne to come up with another problem, but within a day or two this thread might die down. If there are enough interested parties (I might be, despite being a stats student), maybe I can set up a mailing list dedicated to such beasts. Who knows?
It seems to me that many a relationship is conceived (no pun intended!) in the workplace. Technical sorts looking for a like-minded partner would have better luck if they had a like-minded job.
Having said that though, guys who are trying to find a female partner would do well to realise that, unless there are an abundance of women in their circle, what few there are will likely have been hit on too many times by the other men, so go easy. The reverse obviously applies too.
One big problem with trying to find a long-distance (e.g., online) partner is that one's views and expectations of their `quarry' may be inflated to the extent that, by the time they finally meet in Real Life, they suddenly realise that neither suits the other. Remember that not being with someone face-to-face means that you won't get to notice their little quirks---not all of which are as pleasant as you might think!
Oh, two more things, especially for the guys. There are many who would much rather have a friend first---so approach with a good motive. And remember that at the other end of the line, just like your end, there really is a person---as much you'd like to think they're a new version of that `doctor' you saw in Emacs.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
In Majordomo 1, the confirmation feature is at best useless, and at worst it provides a false sense of security. Daniel J. Bernstein has this to say about it (under the section ``Subscription cookie prediction'').
I've had a look at the cookie generation code in Majordomo 1.94.5 (the current version 1 release) and it's quite trivial, given a cookie and the email address you used to get that cookie, to make a cookie for any other email address. So if the list actually allows public subscription (e.g., open+confirm), be prepared to subscribe anyone.
This claim is substantiated; there is, for example, a working implementation.
Some people argue that the cookie algorithm can be changed; however this is no longer the ``default setting'' that you were referring to.
In my quick perusal of the Majordomo 2 code, they have got it ``right'', in the sense that you can't just spoof the ``confirmation tokens'' (as they're called in the code), which are randomly generated (using the standard Perl rand()---I don't know how secure or insecure this is).
I'll bet any money (in Monopoly[tm] currency Of Course) that those ``jock types'' were seeking to impress---not the woman concerned by the way, only to his peers that he's not ``being beaten by a woman''.
I don't know---were you referring to a high school scenario? Two reasons why I ask:
(Just for the record---no one will catch me dead using ``girl'' in the wrong context. :-))
I can't speak for the majority of women (I'm not even a woman myself!), but my sister and a (female) friend of hers have both chosen to take up engineering degrees. Times have changed; I don't believe that as much encouragement is needed anymore, as long as there aren't severe discouragement from (especially male) dickheads...
I really hope that the ``installed base'' of technical workers don't try to lay every woman that comes into the workplace... if they do that, it will go a long way toward explaining just why many women avoid working in technical professions.
Thanks to the person(s) who moderated up Edward's post, and Corrinne's challenge. Since I still don't have any moderator points, time to expose myself.
It was a good challenge. Independently I got up to figuring out $z$ in terms of $x$ and $y$, but being rather weak in ``three-dimensional geometry'' (I'll heartily admit to any mathematical deficiencies after dropping pure maths to become a stats weenie :-)) that was as far as I got.
I would probably ask Corrinne to come up with another problem, but within a day or two this thread might die down. If there are enough interested parties (I might be, despite being a stats student), maybe I can set up a mailing list dedicated to such beasts. Who knows?
It seems to me that many a relationship is conceived (no pun intended!) in the workplace. Technical sorts looking for a like-minded partner would have better luck if they had a like-minded job.
:-)
Having said that though, guys who are trying to find a female partner would do well to realise that, unless there are an abundance of women in their circle, what few there are will likely have been hit on too many times by the other men, so go easy. The reverse obviously applies too.
One big problem with trying to find a long-distance (e.g., online) partner is that one's views and expectations of their `quarry' may be inflated to the extent that, by the time they finally meet in Real Life, they suddenly realise that neither suits the other. Remember that not being with someone face-to-face means that you won't get to notice their little quirks---not all of which are as pleasant as you might think!
Oh, two more things, especially for the guys. There are many who would much rather have a friend first---so approach with a good motive. And remember that at the other end of the line, just like your end, there really is a person---as much you'd like to think they're a new version of that `doctor' you saw in Emacs.
Good luck!