On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:41:19PM -0400, Jim Sharkey wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > >Therefore, a compromise occurs to me. Why not have *BOTH* a filtered > >and non-filtered list. brin-l-f would be filtered in whatever way > >a group of like-minded people think best (or you could even have > >brin-l-f1, brin-l-f2, etc.), while brin-l would be unfiltered. People > >can subscribe to whatever list they like. In case that wasn't clear, > >another way of saying it is that the messages in brin-l-f would be a > >subset of the messages in brin-l, and brin-l would be a superset of > >brin-l-f. > > So you're saying there wouldn't be more than one list, but a list > where certain people don't necessarily see all the messages, if they > fall within certain parameters?
Exactly. > In either case, you have a certain percentage of the populace not > really involved. Not exactly. Rather, in the first case you have a certain person(s) not involved (banned, temporarily or permanently), in the second case, you have certain MESSAGES not involved. The filtered person can still post to brin-l, and an interested person on brin-l-f could look up those posts on brin-l if they were so inclined. In other words, in the second case fewer posts are "lost" to potential existence (I sound like a anti-email-abortionist :-). In fact, you could even imagine a filter that uses a more complex algorithm than just killfiling people, in which case a person could choose when they write a post whether it would get into brin-l-smartfilter or not (by following the "rules" or not). Or we could be more permissive and have the filter dumber by just having tags in the subject line (if a person puts FFF, then it makes it through the filter, otherwise not). Or some combination of these. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
