> Top priority for me is that common list operations must not
> require manual attention. There were more than 16,000
> different senders on our lists so far. And only a small
> fraction of those addresses are subscribed. Do you really
> want to approve all those sender add
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> This might be workable. I fear Sascha's solution could be rather prone to
> mistakes, and it would slow down list delivery for everyone. Requiring
> approval for non-list members is a hassle for them, but if enough people
> are willing to be on the re
This might be workable. I fear Sascha's solution could be rather prone to
mistakes, and it would slow down list delivery for everyone. Requiring
approval for non-list members is a hassle for them, but if enough people
are willing to be on the receiving end of these messages to be approved it
pro
Another possibility :) Would require a bit of shifting things around,
which could be quite a bit of a disturbance.
I have a get-to-the-root-of-it-all sort of question: Is the problem that
it's too hard to combat spam or that the people in charge of the lists
don't have time to really get into it?
Sascha Schumann wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Toby Butzon wrote:
>
> > Although I agree, I don't think it's ever going to happen. Somehow, the
> > head PHP folks don't seem to be too interested in combatting spam; I
> > brought up the discussion a few weeks ago and was met with strong
> > resis
Rasmus Lerdorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What we are not interested in is stopping people who are not subscribed to
> the lists directly from participating. A lot of people read the lists via
> nntp or through various web gateways. You can rant all you want about the
> spam, but until you com
Toby Butzon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Although I agree, I don't think it's ever going to happen. Somehow, the
> head PHP folks don't seem to be too interested in combatting spam; I
> brought up the discussion a few weeks ago and was met with strong
> resistance.
>
> Maybe when the list gets to
> Although I agree, I don't think it's ever going to happen. Somehow, the
> head PHP folks don't seem to be too interested in combatting spam; I
> brought up the discussion a few weeks ago and was met with strong
> resistance.
>
> Maybe when the list gets to be 20% spam they'll listen. It _is_ ste
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Toby Butzon wrote:
> Although I agree, I don't think it's ever going to happen. Somehow, the
> head PHP folks don't seem to be too interested in combatting spam; I
> brought up the discussion a few weeks ago and was met with strong
> resistance.
You'd be surprised to lear
Although I agree, I don't think it's ever going to happen. Somehow, the
head PHP folks don't seem to be too interested in combatting spam; I
brought up the discussion a few weeks ago and was met with strong
resistance.
Maybe when the list gets to be 20% spam they'll listen. It _is_ steadily
getti
Couldn't some just go and kill those spammers?
Is it possible to set rules (similar to those my mozilla takes) for the
list?
class a candidate would be 'SEEN'+'NATIONAL'+'TV' and the like
andré
Original Message
Subject: [PHP-PEAR] Dear Friends & Future Millionaire:
Date: Tue,
11 matches
Mail list logo
