On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:01 PM, Andy Bradford <amb-fos...@bradfords.org> wrote: > > Throwing a rock through an 747's window is one way to solve the problem > of getting a plane to drop in altitude, but that doesn't mean it's the > best way.
Why is that a good analogy for what’s been done here? I’d say your analogy is exactly backwards: we’ve got people throwing rocks at our plane to make it drop in altitude, and we can’t prevent them from doing so, so instead we’ve redesigned the plane to make it impervious to thrown rocks. > The problem described on that link is about spammers subscribing to the > mailing lists and then sending automated spam to those who post to the > mailing list. Yes, and that can’t happen with Fossil forums. > I guess this new forum feature was easier to implement, The Fossil forum feature is inherently valuable, so you can’t charge the effort spent on it against the current spam problems. Two of my own public Fossil-based projects will be adopting it soon. With that cost externalized, the question then becomes whether it’s easier to use Fossil’s new forum moderation features or to keep fighting the spammers one-on-one. Since part of that cost is also externalized — i.e. by drh making me a moderator — it seems likely that the new method will mean less overall work for drh. That in turn means we either get more improvements in Fossil and SQLite, or drh gets time to do things he’d rather be doing than fighting spammers. That sounds like a good thing to me. > even if it does make communication less useful. The Fossil forum has been quite busy over the past few days. Most of the discussion is about the forums themselves, rather than general-interest Fossil topics, but that’s normal for a big new feature set. It doesn’t seem that the new method is materially less useful than the old. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users