On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 03:27:11PM -0700, Loren Wilton wrote: > > Could the list be a semi-private one, with moderated subscription and > > posting? That'd take care of rules in development being exposed > > to spammers while they're still being worked on, at least partially. > > The SARE list is private and invitation only for exactly these reasons. > > You don't want to go that far, but having it be a moderated list, in the > sense of requiring a moderator to approve the join (and being able to kick > someone off the list!) would be a Good Thing. The archives should probably > only be available to the list members, at least for a period of a month or > so. Afther that they could be public with little detrement.
I'm *really worried* about proposals that involve mailing lists that have only private archives and require moderator approval for subscription. It just doesn't feel right for an open source project. It's quite possible that this drives people away. In fact I'm quite sure people are less likely to get involved if they have to somehow prove that they aren't a spammer in order to subscribe. For example, I came across the sare-users mailing list the other day, but I didn't want to go through the hassle of subscribing -- I just wanted to browse the archives. How do we balance the benefits of being open with the potential dangers? > I don't see a need for moderated postings from approved list members. If > you want to have a "submit a rule here" maildrop-like facility attached to > the list, where anyone can submit a rules file to be tested, then this would > need to be a moderated posting. Otherwise the spammers could submit a rule > with about a thousand stars in it, with predictable results. Obviously any mechanism that would lead to a mass-check run (or any other use of other people's computer resources) would require some sort of authentication. -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
