On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 02:11, Gareth Williams wrote: > First things first. Seriously, hasn't this thread gone on long enough? This > list has a relatively high volume of OT posts these days, and I think Mathew > (or anyone else) has every right to object, and those concerned should be > considerate and continue the discussion off list. This is, after all, a list > for discussion about linux. I don't think it's unreasonable for people signed > up to the list to expect the discussion to be mostly about linux.
At some level, isn't it the mailing list for the CLUG, and therefore anything that interests "CLUG members" is on topic? Hopefully the "OT" mail header is helping to some extent ... Obviously I wouldn't include the rugby scores, because I can't imagine that all/most CLUG members care, and if they did there are more appropriate places. But spam can easily be seen as a "technical" issue, definately part of the Internet and Linux'y topics. I partake of a number of forums which discuss spam as part of their normal topic range (i.e. email servers, etc) and it's often useful to be presented with an example of "borderline" behaviour, to help you decide how to respond to incoming email. For example, some people advocate a "Challenge-Response" email system, judging that spammers won't receive the challenges, [and therefore|or] won't respond to them. Unfortunately, they suffer from that fact that many non-spammers won't or can't respond to their challenges, and therefore simple C-R has an unqualifiable rejection rate. Jason's b2b email example would help people clarify their own definition of what's acceptable. I'd reject b2b email to me/my business as "uninteresting" ... but it would be very bad indeed to reject it to my employer's business, because I don't have the authority to make decisions for them in this borderline area. (See, look, I've rambled from "off-topicnessness" into the topic itself! Curses ...) Some lists I've used in the past had an etiquette of allowing Off Topic posts, but encouraging an "Obligatory <on topic>" section in a message to compensate. So I'll try to revive it ... ObCLUG: I received a Domain Names NZ spam snail mail the other day, offering me a 2-year .net.nz for $237. Don't fall for these "fake invoices" if you see them, the authorities already know (but might be interested in the scale). >From the Office of the Domain Name Commissioner :- > At this stage our office is closely monitoring this situation and we > are > currently in communication with the Commerce Commission, as well as > doing our own investigations into the matter. > In addition the Australian authorities (Domain Names NZ are in fact > based in Perth) are also working to stop these people. > We will take whatever steps are required to get an outcome from this. > Further information on this matter is available at > http://www.dnc.org.nz/story/30143-29-1.html -jim
