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 subscribe before > asking a question. I don't want to subscribe, dammit, I just want > to ask something.
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. > 2. It allows the discussion to extend to non-subscribers. You can > simply Cc a person to a discussion pertinent to him, and he will be > able to respond to the list. > > 3. It allows the mails from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to be rerouted to this > list. Yup. > I am aware that in this matter, as well as in the infamous `Reply-To' > debate, this list lies in the minority. But that is not a sufficient > reason to back down and let the spammers win. Right now, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is providing free relaying for spammers to all its subscribers. <sarcasm>If this is "not letting the spammers win", I wonder what is.</sarcasm> > If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include > disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen. Mmm... What would you think of having the list software automatically add a special header (say X-Non-Subscriber) to every mail sent by a non-subscriber ? -- Andr� Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/> std::disclaimer ("Not speaking for my employer");
