On 03/26/2018 09:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:19 PM, kuzetsa <kuze...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 03/20/2018 08:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> >>> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is >>> basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since >>> all they need to do is roll up a new email address. >>> >>> I can think of various arguments for whitelisting or not whitelisting, >>> but it seems silly to blacklist. >>> >> >> require active stewardship (moderation, blacklisting, etc.) >> >> entry barriers to participation (default deny / require whitelist) >> >> if there are limitations on free speech, someone has to bear the burden. >> for gentoo to have list moderation (blacklist approach) which isn't >> dysfunctional, the main barrier to resources will be the human resources >> end of things, not technical constraints. The tools themselves are easy >> enough to use, but people who are willing and able to use them, and with >> a clear guideline for how it needs done is a comrel issue which the >> foundation needs to sort out. >> > > List moderation isn't the same as blacklisting. With moderation > you're effectively whitelisting because the first post anybody makes > would be held for moderation, and depending on the approach you could > moderate everything. > > If you allowed new subscribers to post without being held for > moderation, then the issues I spoke of would still apply, no matter > how much manpower you threw at it. >
I think this may be a misunderstanding? no? there might be some mailing list jargon term: "moderation" which I was unaware of: I was more referring to how IRC chatrooms have an op, forums have moderators which DO NOT screen individual posts, etc. I think I know of the other version, and it might be analogous to the mechanism you meant? for example: websites which hold back all comments which are posted anonymously (non-trusted users) until a moderator can approve it. I've never used mailing list software which has that feature (I think that may be what you're referring to) - I mostly meant someone (or a team) with the specific duty to hold people accountable for their posts (since the list is public-facing, this should include @gentoo.org devs too because it sets a weird precedent to have disparate enforcement) specifically - I was referring to persons (staff) who are moderators. (active stewardship to check for problems which need addressed) I think the mechanism you describes sounds like some sort of greylist / tiered version of default deny or something like that. Interesting. the "require whitelist / default deny" version of having a closed list seems the same - expecting users to contact a dev to relay messages, or go through the dubiously [un]documented process of getting whitelisted. unless that process has a standardized format, it seems worse than the greylist because individual developers have the autonomy to [not] sponsor people for whitelist, or approve posting on a user's behalf. the lack of transparency for the process is a concern, I mean.
