JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A) How important is it that a "software user's list" accept and distribute
>all posts (including posts from non-sub$cribers) that are remotely
>"on-topic" and about the software in question?
That depends upon the list. For a new list, those are reasonable
restrictions. To impose them on an established list is another
matter. I'd only do it with the consent of the list determined by a
vote.
>B) Is it reasonable to expect/require the software's users sub$cribe to
>the list and to read a FAQ before accepting their posts? (To no longer
>approve non-member posts and strictly limit posting to sub$cribers, and to
>include the FAQ (or a pointer to a URL that contains the FAQ and a strongly
>worded suggestion that they read it before postin) in the welcome message.)
You can cram the FAQ down people's throats, but it won't do any
good. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just don't expect FAQs to
miraculously go away.
Limiting submissions to svbscribers is an easy way to cut down on
spam, but it doesn't prevent all spam, and it does block useful
messages from nonsvbscribers. None of my lists require membership for
posting. I personally find it inconvenient because I subscribe to
lists using list-specific addresses, and I'd prefer to post to lists
using my main address so direct replies won't be filed in the list
mailbox. This list is a case in point.
>C) Is it reasonable to expect the admins to answer *some* of the
>non-member posts outright, rather than forwarding the post to the list (to
>be distributed to several hundred sub$cribers, and then not answered, and
>then be asked again)?
It's not reasonable to impose additional work on volunteer admins
after they've agreed to do an easier job. At least give them an
opportunity to bow out gracefully.
>I believe a simple solution is for the admin to
>reject the post with an reply to the sender on why it's inappropriate, or
>supplying the FAQ url where the answer lies, or just answering the question
>("no, you can't do that") when this can be done with a minimum of effort.
Sure, that's fine if your admins are willing to do that.
>p.s. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that I had to munge sub$criber (a
>total of 15 times) to get this post sent on to a list where the main topic
>of discussion is mailing list management and thus sub$criber is a common
>word?
Yes, I've complained about that in past.
-Dave
