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

Reply via email to