It looks like (c) is the most popular option, so that's what I'll be
implementing, short of any further discussion/debate on the list.
I'd like to respond to David's mail below:
David GLAUDE wrote:
Obviously answer to the problem is to really moderate the list... not
every 20 days.
Sifting
Rob Lanphier wrote:
Obviously answer to the problem is to really moderate the list... not
every 20 days.
Sifting through spam in a limited webform interface is a task I really
don't look forward to. So, unfortunately, it may be 20 days between
times that I do this.
Maybe that is the problem,
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:41:07 -0800
From: Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Batch of old messages
a. allow legit posts through, regardless of how old
I don't think this is a good idea. As you mentioned earlier, somebody
could have figured out they needed to subscribe
I think you should go for option c, but if a particular post catches your
eye and turns out to be interesting to you, let it go through.
Forest
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Hi all,
You'll probably notice a batch of fairly old messages coming through on
the list. This is because
At 1:09 PM -0800 11/20/03, Forest Simmons wrote:
I think you should go for option c, but if a particular post catches your
eye and turns out to be interesting to you, let it go through.
I would vote for just bouncing the posts and telling the people to
joinoption c.
My full preferences,
Hi all,
You'll probably notice a batch of fairly old messages coming through on
the list. This is because I just went through the queue of 28 messages
which sat in the moderator queue, and found the half a dozen or so that
are legit emails, as opposed to the rest, which were spam. The reason
