On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 21:43, Ken Foskey wrote:
> > > > 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.
I'll be voting no to a *fully* moderated list. I agree that spammers
almost always forge email addresses but I disagree that limiting to
'validated subscribers' will have zero impact. The spams that do get
through tend to be from people not on the list. Therefore I will be voting
yes to a moderated list.
--
---<GRiP>---
Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist,
Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber,
BMX rider, Walker, Raver & rave music lover, Big kid that refuses
grow up. I'd make a good family pet, take me home today!
Do people actually read these things?
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
