FWIW, I think Andre Majorel's solution would be an elegant solution
(adding X-Non-Subscriber header). It can be automated,
requires no moderator at all, allows non-subscribers to post,
and allows those with a lower threshold for junk to choose to
ditch some of the posts to the list based on the
If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include
disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen.
It's not spam fighting, but I would personally like to see a wget-announce
moderator-only list where new releases and security announcements could be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hrvoje Niksic said:
James C. McMaster (Jim) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Reinke said:
Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam) a bit high
here? I sympathize with the effort required to lightly moderate,
but
On 2002-01-29 22:02 +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
But that was just an example. The actual reasoning for allowing
non-subscriber posting boils down to three reasons:
1. I believe it is the right thing to do. I personally hate allegedly
supportive mailing lists that require me to
Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I respectfully disagree. If we can spend the time to read and
answer the poster's question, the poster can spend five minutes
to subscribe/unsubscribe.
For reference, see the netiquette item on posting to newsgroups
and asking for replies by email.
Marc Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include
disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen.
It's not spam fighting, but I would personally like to see a
wget-announce moderator-only list
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hrvoje Niksic said:
Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right now, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is providing free relaying for spammers
to all its subscribers.
So does any mailing list with open subscription.
Any spammer *could* subscribe to an
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Reinke said:
Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam)
a bit high here? I sympathize with the effort required
to lightly moderate, but might I recommend that
_something_ be done to rid us all of this spam? It's
getting to be irritating enough
On 2002-01-28 14:33 -0500, Thomas Reinke wrote:
Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam)
a bit high here?
A bit *low* you mean ? You bet.
I sympathize with the effort required
to lightly moderate, but might I recommend that
_something_ be done to rid us all of this spam?
