On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:57:08PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I don't agree that operational issues related to the Internet needs to > be segregated from the main list, just the politics and kookery. I'm > not in favor of mailops@ since opening up such a topic as a free for > all is a recipe for disaster.
I don't think it would be as bad as that, especially if some folks with significant/lengthy experience ride herd on it, screen out known spammers, encourage some of the 800-lb gorillas to participate, etc. (As an aside, I'm doing my small part to thwart at least some kookery by writing what amounts to a Worst Current Anti-Spam Practices document.) I do think it would be best to charter such a list in a manner that diverted potentially off-topic traffic elsewhere. For example, it shouldn't be used as a removal request queue for DNSBLs (contact them via their established methods) or to solve MTA-specific problems (use the postfix mailing list, sendmail newsgroup, etc.), etc. Yes, some of these sorts of things will inevitably be part of most conversations, but some judicious steering could stop such a list from becoming a catch-all. > Spam-l is well established and accepts operators. Go west young man. > Otherwise, use your kill file, Luke. Yes, but...there's more -- much more -- to operating mail services than just controlling spam, and by design, that's the sole focus of Spam-L (although topics drift there as much as they do on any mailing list). ---Rsk
