-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:52:39PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote: > On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:40:56 +0200 Jochen Spieker <m...@well-adjusted.de> > wrote: > > > fc: > > > > > > Actually -- does anyone monitor this list for this type of stuff? > > > > You have no idea *how much* spam is blocked by the work of the list > > masters [...]
(not the OP, but -- thanks for that, BTW!) > > > Why not just restrict it to people who have subscribed? > > > > Because this excludes use cases that are deemed valid by the list > > masters. > > Like what? > > Why not this: [...] You'd think this hasn't all been discussed. But it has. Extensively. *If* you want to re-hash it here, then please, please: do some homework first. Use your favourite search engine and try to dig up some previous discussion. The list's openness is *by design*, not by mistake. It's not because all of "them" didn't come up with the Right Idea(TM) Yes, sounds a bit harsh and all. But if you don't do some research we're stuck in an endless loop. Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlj5tMYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYYagCdFiuHX7DqllpZmIEpMsRTjvP1 ELUAn06Idn8t0fUNYuwRjUN051OtrubY =o+Za -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----