Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>
> Sure has. Actually, I've been working towards it for about 18 months
> now. I want to completely remove the concept of "subscription" to a
> "list", especially if that subscription is tied to an e-mail address
> instead of a user. Becuse users don't change, but they're email
> addresses do, and there's no hell like being subscribed to 18 lists
> and have to remember which variant of what address is on which
> list.....
We're still waiting for details on this, it must be the 2nd or 3rd time
you've hinted about it in the past few months.
I like the idea of being able to unlink e-mail addresses from users, but
only if it can be done without sacrificing accountability somehow.
The point on validating e-mail addresses is not only to keep forgers from
clogging someone's mailbox, it also serves to give the list manager a
way of reliably determining who said what.
Most newspapers do not publish anonymous letters, IMHO neither should most
mailing lists. (Unvalidated and unverified posters, essentially an open
list, are evn worse than anonymous services, there's no way to keep out
the spammers and out-and-out troublemakers.)
The key word is 'most', yes there are exceptions, but I can see little or
no reason in THIS list, or any of my lists for hiding one's identity, and
many good reasons why some type of disclosure is useful, since I'm dealing
with sports fans. (Fans of team X disparaging team Y need to be reacted to
differently than fans of team Y disparaging that team, IMHO.)
That's my biggest problem with totally web-based forums, aside from the
fact that they are primarily 'pull' rather than 'push' mediums. (There
are good reasons for both, to me the optimal solution would encompass some
aspects of both.)
--
Mike Nolan
