James Aviani wrote: > I know this is fairly low-tech, but it seemed like a reasonable and practical > solution to spamming. This is a interesting if not good idea. Some of the details may need to be worked out (like perhaps certain people opt in or opt out of being a moderator), but the technical implementation is probably the easy part. If you've given the IETF a solution without causing a theological debate over the 'technical purity' of it, you've left your mark for posterity. John
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs ned . freed
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs grenville armitage
- Social solutions mean lawyers... Re: filtering... grenville armitage
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Keith Moore
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Keith Moore
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Eric Rosen
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Keith Moore
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Pyda Srisuresh
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs James Aviani
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs John Kristoff
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Keith Moore
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Kevin Farley
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs ned . freed
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Keith Moore
- RE: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Christian Huitema
- RE: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Tony Hain
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs grenville armitage
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Maurizio Codogno
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs John Stracke
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs stanislav shalunov