On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 18:28, Jon Biddell wrote:
> Are you saying that the amount of work to impliment a subscribers-only
> posting rule would be onerous ?
>
> I agree with the thread you quoted in part - about the list being "... a
> great resource ...", so lets keep it that way by denyingn posting to
> non-subscribers.
One of the coolest aspects of the SLUG mailing lists is the fast
turnaround. Being able to resolve a problem fifteen minutes after
sending the email is, in my mind, what makes the list such a great
resource.
What concerns me with a subscriber-only posting policy is the amount of
work that will be required to keep mail flowing in a timely manner. I
know I don't have the time to approve 5-10 emails a day as soon as they
arrive, and I doubt the other admins do, either.
The point I was trying to make in the linked mail is that neither avenue
is a perfect solution, but I think the recent improvements have made the
current policy much more pleasant.
Then, on the other hand, asking myself "How can I stop these smelly
spams from getting through again?" is a much more interesting challenge
than "Should I let this user post to the list?". :-)
> After all, if they can't be bothered subscribing (as in "it's too hard"),
> then they are going to find Linux hard going anyway...
Telling a new user to go away and come back when they've subscribed
implies a certain level of elitism, which to me sounds even more
dangerous than any number of distro flamewars.
--
Pete
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...there's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial
and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone.
(Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man)
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
