On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On 2/17/02 7:48 PM, "Larry McVoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Second, the point is that even if mailman is 100% perfect, it's not > > at all clear that that would result in even 1% less spam hitting home. > > If that's even remotely close, then it seems like efforts could be better > > spent on screening technology. > > You can't assume your admins are going to want/have screening technology, > unless you build it into mailman. And I don't think Mailman can simply say > "hey, that's some other program's problem". We need to find ways to not > become an easy source for the harvester machines. I DO know from my sites > that addresses published ONLY as mailman admins get harvested and hit by > spam. [SNIP] > But at the same time -- I don't blame him. And Mailman has a responsibility > to do something about that, the way we (as admins) have a responsibility ot > our users not to make them easy fodder for the harvesters by publishing > archives in an easy to harvest format...
I would just like to put in one thought... I like the whole small is beautiful philosophy. Maybe as you add more features, we can add some of these things as distict modules? I still feel the pipe is one of the best things *NIX has going for it. I worry about feature creap for a number of reasons. Just a thought. -Keith _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
