On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 21:43, Ken Foskey wrote: > The following are my opinions, if your opinions differ then let us know > :-) > > On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 13:43, Mary Gardiner wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003, Jan Schmidt wrote: > > > a) Leaving it alone. > > No moderation, users that are not subscribed can post. We have a spam > filter but it only works most of the time, no guarantee. > > > > b) Moving to a moderated list. > > I think this means we allow subscribed members through but people who > have not subscribed are subject to a visual check. This is subject to > at least 3 volunteers able to perform this task 7 days a week. > > Does anyone actually want a FULLY moderated list? I wish for it > sometimes but generally we are not flaming others except with tongue > firmly in cheek.
Spammers these days forge source addresses - restricting who joins will have zip impact on spam - and the reason for the vote is to address the 'spam problem'. I have always understood moderated list to mean all messages are reviewed. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://members.aardvark.net.au/lifeless/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
