Suresh,
I don't mind having WG lists moderate contributions from non-subscribers,
provided the moderator can act in a timely fashion (say within a day or
so) and the moderator allows any post that is even arguably on-topic for
the list.
for reasons already stated, I doubt that a single moderator could be
found for the main ietf list. but I would like to see an experiment
with the 'multiple per-message moderators chosen at random from the
subcriber list' proposals.
the problem with the NAT list was that posts from non-susbcribers
were, apparently, simply discarded. as you point out, this has since
been fixed.
Keith
p.s. I don't think the question of whether we inconvience the legitimate
poster or the spammer more is the relevant one. a better question is
which filtering policy allows our organization to function more effectively -
given that 'effectiveness' includes honoring our principle of open participation
and being open to good ideas from all sources.
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Pyda Srisuresh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: filtering of mailing lists
>
> --- Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Here is a suggestion.
> >
> > > Require people to subscribe to a list to post to the list.
> >
> > worked great for the NAT WG list, which successfully used this technique
> > to discourage input from people harmed by NAT.
>
> NAT WG never had a separate subscribe-to-post requirement, FYI.
>
> The previous list as well as the current list (hosted by the IETF)
> required a single subscription to receive as well as to post.
>
> With the current list, messages sent by folks not subscribed to the
> list would be directed to list administrator to permit posting to
> the list. List administrator would have to manually approve the posting.
>
> Now, do you object to a separate subscribe-to-post requirement?
> Would this discourage or inconvenience you (the occassional non-spam
> contributor to a non-subscribed-to-receive-list) or the spammer more?
>
> If the answer is debatable (or) the frequent spammer is likely to be
> discouraged at least 50% of the time, the approach is worth a try.
