Is there a way to whitelist / trust posters. One of the other groups I
follow is moderated, but is set up so that messages from trusted posters
go straight through. The moderator(s) only have to look at posts coming
from untrusted sources and decide whether new posters can be trusted.
Caveat: I don't know how much effort that requires. It just seems like
a possible 4th option (if doable).
On 12/14/2021 10:02 PM, Sage Gerard wrote:
> Wouldn't people asking to be invited be pretty much the same
moderation burden as option 3, but with less support? I guess that's a
way of saying I lean to option 3.
I see what you mean. I saw "invite-only" as the option with the most
/discretionary/ effort when volunteers are scarce, since a trusted
member of this community can add a member with a presumably lower risk
of introducing a spammer. Since I'm not going to be available to ban
spammers forever, I'm reading these options in terms of minimizing the
reasons someone has to drop what they are doing to mess with the list.
On 12/14/21 3:53 PM, David Bremner wrote:
Sage Gerard<s...@sagegerard.com> writes:
I've gained administrative privileges over this list to address the spammer. I
want to hear from others before I touch anything.
Thanks for putting effort into this.
I've been informed that an invite-only approach might not be appropriate, but
without moderation, the only option I see is to change the privacy settings.
Here are the choices Google gives us.
- Invited users only
- Anyone on the web can join
- Anyone on the web can ask
Wouldn't people asking to be invited be pretty much the same moderation
burden as option 3, but with less support? I guess that's a way of
saying I lean to option 3.
Comments welcome, but note that I do not know the chain of command. If
it comes down to my judgement, please let me know.
Pretty sure I'm not in any relevant chain of command.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To view this discussion on the web visit