šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Status: It turns out you can put an email address in both the safe senders and blocked senders lists in Outlook.


  • ā™æ

    @FrostCat said in The Official Status Thread:

    Status: It turns out you can put an email address in both the safe senders and blocked senders lists in Outlook.

    Man, how do those guys call themselves software developers?



  • @boomzilla said in The Official Status Thread:

    Man, how do those guys call themselves software developers?

    Someone explain to me why that shouldn't be allowed.

    Safe sender = you know this guy isn't going to send a virus

    Blocked sender = you don't want to see emails from this person

    As I post here like 26 times a day, I do not see how the two things are (supposedly) mutually-exclusive.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    Someone explain to me why that shouldn't be allowed.

    because it is counterintuitive to the way the average nontechnical user would expect those lists to work.

    your average user wiull probably treat those lists as "i want to see these emails, stop putting them in spam and blocking the embedded images!" and "ugh! i hate that guy's opinions. shitcan his emails for me automatically" which would make the behavior of allowing an address to be on both lists at the same time...... problematical.



  • @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    because it is counterintuitive to the way the average nontechnical user would expect those lists to work.

    You have studies to back this up, of course, and you're not just pulling this factoid out of your ass.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    because it is counterintuitive to the way the average nontechnical user would expect those lists to work.

    You have studies to back this up, of course, and you're not just pulling this factoid out of your ass.

    exactly as many studies as you have to support your views.



  • @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    which would make the behavior of allowing an address to be on both lists at the same time...... problematical.

    If it caused a big problem, they'd not allow it.

    I don't see why you'd add a user to both, other than by accident, but I don't see any reason to not allow it either. They are different things.



  • @accalia I don't need studies to know those two operations aren't mutually-exclusive, I'm just using logic.

    It's your assertion that my logic doesn't work because to most people it's "counter-intuitive". Which is frankly bullshit.

    I might agree with you if the person both marked a sender as safe, and also blocked them at the same time, but what's FAR more likely to happen is that the sender is marked as safe (either because the user marked them, or because Exchange is set to mark senders from that domain as safe), then weeks or months later after they've been sending annoying emails might block them. In that most common case, at the time the user is blocking them, they're not likely to even spend a millisecond even thinking about whether the sender is marked as "safe" or not. It doesn't matter to them, they just wanted that person blocked.

    Additionally, since Exchange commonly is set to mark all senders from a particular domain as safe, if it worked otherwise, it'd be impossible for you to block emailers from those domains in Outlook. It'd say "you can't block this user because he's on the safe senders list, oh and you can't remove him from the safe senders list, fuck you." Nobody wants that. (Now maybe a company does want to make it impossible to, for example, block their own HR department emails. But that should be a different policy not involving the safe senders list.)

    No I'm sorry, I think this is just another person on this forum bitching about an operation being allowed before spending 26 milliseconds trying to think of why it's allowed. Then accalia, who also didn't think about it for those 26 milliseconds, white-knighting for them for some reason.


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in The Official Status Thread:

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    which would make the behavior of allowing an address to be on both lists at the same time...... problematical.

    If it caused a big problem, they'd not allow it.

    I don't see why you'd add a user to both, other than by accident, but I don't see any reason to not allow it either. They are different things.

    is there a valid use case for the behavior observed? Not that i have encountered and your comment seems to indicate you agree.

    can the observed behavior be legitimately described as a bug by the user? yes. it can. the behavior is unexpected and counterintuitive.

    therefore the behavior should not be allowed.


    of course there is the matter of the usability study that blakeyrat wants me to prefrom as well as gaining access to the requirements documentation for the project, but as i can't be arsed to do a usability study for blakeyrat and i don't work for microsoft to get those requirements.... well this is all just theoretical armchair complaining about software.


  • ā™æ

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    Safe sender = you know this guy isn't going to send a virus

    That wasn't how I understanded that. And apparently, neither does Microsoft:

    Email messages from safe senders are never moved to the Junk E-mail folder.

    Blocked sender = you don't want to see emails from this person
    You got this one right, though.

    Messages from addresses or domain names in the Blocked Senders List are always treated as junk.

    So, these seem pretty mutually exclusive to me. Hey @FrostCat, which one wins?


  • BINNED

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    can the observed behavior be legitimately described as a bug by the user? yes. it can. the behavior is unexpected and counterintuitive.

    No, a bug is only a problem observed in common usage scnarios. Since addung a user to both lists is :doing_it_wrong:, nothing resulting from it can possibly be a bug. Ipso fatso


  • ā™æ

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    I don't need studies to know those two operations aren't mutually-exclusive, I'm just using logic.

    Yes, but with faulty assumptions.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    @accalia I don't need studies to know those two operations aren't mutually-exclusive, I'm just using logic.

    odd, that's the same thing i would say about my position.

    so why am i the one that needs studies to prove my point and you are correct by definition?

    that makes no sense.



  • @boomzilla Maybe; but at least I explained my position.

    At some point the definition of "safe sender" seems to have changed. It used to mean "always load image/attachments from these users", and while it probably also kept them out of the junk folder, that wasn't the primary purpose.



  • @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    odd, that's the same thing i would say about my position.

    Yes; but you'd be wrong. You can't "logically" determine what's intuitive to a person or not. Not without studying them.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:
    Yes; but you'd be wrong.

    yes, i suppose i must be for disagreeing with you.

    :rolleyes:


  • BINNED

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    You can't "logically" determine what's intuitive to a personBlakeyrat or not



  • @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:
    Yes; but you'd be wrong.

    yes, i suppose i must be for disagreeing arguing with you.

    :rolleyes:

    FTFY


  • ā™æ

    @blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:

    @boomzilla Maybe; but at least I explained my position.

    At some point the definition of "safe sender" seems to have changed. It used to mean "always load image/attachments from these users", and while it probably also kept them out of the junk folder, that wasn't the primary purpose.

    Welcome back from the time pod.



  • @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    is there a valid use case for the behavior observed?

    Just because I don't have one, doesn't mean there isn't one. I don't use the blocked senders list at all.

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    can the observed behavior be legitimately described as a bug by the user?

    No. Microsoft clearly did not have a requirement for the lists to be exclusive. It is working as intended.


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in The Official Status Thread:

    No. Microsoft clearly did not have a requirement for the lists to be exclusive. It is working as intended.

    that indicates that microsoft would not describe the behavior as a bug.

    I asked if the user could so describe the behavior.

    if a user says they have a bug, they have a bug and must be treated as such. whether the developer agrees or not is secondary.

    they bug might be closed E_NO_REPRO or E_WONT_FIX but there is no such thing as E_INVALID when it comes to user reported bugs.

    this is something @end, among others, needs to learn



  • @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    they bug might be closed E_NO_REPRO or E_WONT_FIX but there is no such thing as E_INVALID when it comes to user reported bugs.

    When I say shit like this, you guys go into an orgy of "Blakeyrat is redefining the word 'bug' OMG OMG let's make fun of Blakeyrat! Mock him! Mock him!"



  • @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    there is no such thing as E_INVALID when it comes to user reported bugs.

    E_NOTABUG is perfectly valid.

    Are you getting your definition of a bug from blakey?



  • @loopback0 said in The Official Status Thread:

    E_NOTABUG is perfectly valid.

    Developers: all the shit you report is not a bug! Stop wasting our time!

    Users: Ok! Sheesh! Fucking assholes. (Fail to report 4 dozen really important bugs because developers were assholes)


  • ā™æ

    @loopback0 said in The Official Status Thread:

    No. Microsoft clearly did not have a requirement for the lists to be exclusive. It is working as intended.

    How is it intended to work? What happens to emails from people on both lists? It's certainly not working the way it's publicly documented on the pages I linked. I know this is true because the behavior of each list rules out the behavior of the other.



  • @boomzilla said in The Official Status Thread:

    I know this is true because the behavior of each list rules out the behavior of the other.

    Except the blocked list is managed by the user, and the "safe senders" list is, for 99% of entries, managed by the Exchange administrator.

    I'm not at work to try it, but I'd be very surprised if "block" didn't take precedence due to that.


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in The Official Status Thread:

    E_NOTABUG is perfectly valid.

    no, no it isn't.

    the user filed the bug report because they have a problem with your software. you DO NOT belittle them by calling them wrong.

    you do not say they were doing it wrong. if the software did not prevent them from doing it then you cannot blame the user for doing it wrong. the developer did it wrong by not supporting the behavior that the software allowed.

    you, as a developer can say that you will not fix the user's issue. either because it would be cost prohibitive or because of all the other users who rely on the current behavior, but you cannot say that the behavior the user reported is not a bug, because they woul;dn't have bothered filing a bug report if it wasn't a bug to them.

    @loopback0 said in The Official Status Thread:

    Are you getting your definition of a bug from blakey?

    I may disagree with him on the behavior he describes as a bug, I may even call such behavior not a bug when he complains about it in a forum post because i, as a user, disagree with him. but should he ever file a bug report against my code I will treat it as such. He took the time and effort to tell me as a developer about a problem he has with my software, i will treat him with the respect due and treat that bug report seriously.

    I may close the issue because i could not reproduce the problematic behavior, asking him to provide any additional information required to reproduce the issue if he is still experiencing it and reopening the issue if such information is provided. I may close the issue as WONT FIX if i determine that to be the correct solution. but i will not call the bug report INVALID or NOT A BUG because that is insulting the user who had an issue and reported the issue to you, the developer.

    I disagree with blakey on what he calls a bug, but his definition of what a bug is is correct.


  • ā™æ

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    you, as a developer can say that you will not fix the user's issue. either because it would be cost prohibitive or because of all the other users who rely on the current behavior, but you cannot say that the behavior the user reported is not a bug, because they woul;dn't have bothered filing a bug report if it wasn't a bug to them.

    Fuck them. If it's not a bug I can damn well tell them that and why it isn't.



  • @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    the user filed the bug report because they have a problem with your software.

    That doesn't mean that the user is right.
    It's not a bug just because the user logged it.

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    you DO NOT belittle them by calling them wrong.

    Just because people like Jeff are asshats, doesn't mean that everyone handles users the same way.

    @accalia said in The Official Status Thread:

    if the software did not prevent them from doing it then you cannot blame the user for doing it wrong.

    I agree - on that specific type of example. All I disagree with is the assertion that every bug logged by every user is always an actual bug.


  • ā™æ

    @loopback0 said in The Official Status Thread:

    All I disagree with is the assertion that every bug logged by every user is always an actual bug.

    Unless you count PEBKAC bugs.


  • area_deu

    link text


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    0_1461596160066_download.jpg


  • SockDev




  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    All I disagree with is the assertion that every bug logged by every user is always an actual bug.

    it is a bug to the user, that's why they filed the report. the developer must respect that and treat the bug report seriously.

    it can be closed, and there are many ways to close it without fixing the behavior the user considered bugged, but none of them involve E_NOT_A_BUG

    it's a bug because the user said it was, not because the user said it was and the developer agreed.



  • @accalia said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    it is a bug to the user, that's why they filed the report.

    That doesn't make it a bug.

    @accalia said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    the developer must respect that and treat the bug report seriously.

    I'm not saying that they shouldn't treat it seriously, just that not every bug the user raises is an actual bug.

    @accalia said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    it's a bug because the user said it was,

    And what if the user's expectation was incorrect?


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    what if the user's expectation was incorrect?

    Then that's where the bug is: in their expectations. Managing expectations is a huge part of usability, and usability failures are bugs too.



  • @Yamikuronue said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    Then that's where the bug is: in their expectations.

    So it's not in the software - meaning for the sake of a bug report logged against the software, it's not a bug.

    @Yamikuronue said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    Managing expectations is a huge part of usability, and usability failures are bugs too.

    Yes, but sometimes the issue isn't the usability isn't the problem. It's genuinely the user being a spanner.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    sometimes the issue isn't the usability isn't the problem. It's genuinely the user being a spanner.

    Developers are very quick to point fingers and call the user an idiot. I like to flip things on their head: start by assuming you failed to communicate well rather than assuming they weren't listening, so to speak.



  • @Yamikuronue said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    Developers are very quick to point fingers and call the user an idiot.

    Some developers. Some do enough investigation to conclude that in some instances the users are being idiots.

    @Yamikuronue said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    I like to flip things on their head: start by assuming you failed to communicate well rather than assuming they weren't listening, so to speak.

    Right - and sometimes the result is still the user "wasn't listening".

    Either some of you live in a perfect world where the users cannot, and do not, ever make mistakes or I have some users which are stupider than most but some times it's genuinely a case of the user being wrong.
    I'm not saying it's the majority, I'm not saying I go all Jeff on them or start off by assuming they're wrong, but some times the user is wrong.


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    That doesn't make it a bug.

    yes, it does. that's why it's a bug. it might not be a bug in the code, but it's a bug.

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    And what if the user's expectation was incorrect?

    then that's where the bug is.

    the fact that the expectation was wrong does not make it not a bug, it means the bug is in the expectations and how they are managed.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    Some developers.

    See, the thing is, as soon as you saw discussion of bug reports, you jumped to "Well some users are just so stupid you can't write software for them". So, while you're 100% correct that some developers are slower to blame users than others, are you sure you're in the right camp here?


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    Some do enough investigation to conclude that in some instances the users are being idiots.

    if the user has a problem with your software you have a bug.

    it may be a bug where the software let them do something they shouldn't,

    it might be a bug that the user had unrealistic expectations of the software,

    it might even be a bug in the workflow the user put around your product,

    but the user filed a bug report so they have a bug.

    it's just that simple.

    the intelligence or lack thereof of the user does not factor into whether it's a bug or not.



  • @Yamikuronue said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    are you sure you're in the right camp here?

    FWIW I didn't explicitly put myself in either camp.

    @Yamikuronue said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    you jumped to "Well some users are just so stupid you can't write software for them".

    What? I didn't say that. My point all along has been that not all bugs logged by users are actual bugs.


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    . My point all along has been that not all bugs logged by users are actual bugs.

    and our point this entire time has been "yes, they are."


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    not all bugs logged by users are actual bugs.

    Because...?



  • @accalia I'm not claiming you're saying otherwise.


  • SockDev

    @Yamikuronue said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    not all bugs logged by users are actual bugs.

    Because...?

    that's what i'd like to know.


  • ā™æ

    @accalia said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    it is a bug to the user, that's why they filed the report. the developer must respect that and treat the bug report seriously.
    it can be closed, and there are many ways to close it without fixing the behavior the user considered bugged, but none of them involve E_NOT_A_BUG

    Bullshit.

    @accalia said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    it's a bug because the user said it was, not because the user said it was and the developer agreed.

    How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg.
    ā€” Abraham Lincoln


  • ā™æ

    @Yamikuronue said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    @loopback0 said in šŸ”„šŸž outlook bugs and not_a_bugs:

    not all bugs logged by users are actual bugs.

    Because...?

    That's just how the world works. Users report all kinds of silly stuff. Like they didn't realize that they typed in something wrong (say, a name) and then later are upset that the software saved the incorrect name.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.