In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hrvoje Niksic said: > "James C. McMaster (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Reinke said: > >> Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam) a bit high > >> here? I sympathize with the effort required to lightly moderate, > >> but might I recommend that _something_ be done to rid us all of > >> this spam? It's getting to be irritating enough that I'm tempted to > >> drop off the list, which I'd just as soon not do - wget is a > >> fantastic little tool that I'd just as soon stay involved with > >> actively, if possible. > >> > > The easiest solution would be for the list owners to require people > > to subscribe before posting. So far, they seem unwilling to do > > that. All the product-support lists to which I subscribe (except > > this one) have that policy, and I never get spam from any of them. > > I do not know what you call a "product support mailing list", but this > is a free software project development list, and certainly not the > only one with the open posting policy. For example, XEmacs mailing > lists are open to non-subscriber posting. > Product is a generic term. I subscribe to mailing lists on apache, tomcat, exmh, nmh and procmail. All these packages are open-source "products." All of these lists require subscription before posting. I receive spam from none of them.
> 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. > Your call. Subscription and unsubscription are easy enough to do in my opinion. I personally think people who ask a question and then add, "Please reply privately since I am not on the list" are leeches if they want to use the list without giving anything back. If anyone just hits "reply", the person will never see the answer. > 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. > Again, if they are interested enough to contribute to the discussion they should be willing to subscribe. > 3. It allows the mails from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to be rerouted to this > list. > Fine. Why bother with the bug list then? Also, the same problem applies as with this list. If a person just replies, the reporter will never see the response. > 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. > I disagree with you on the "Reply-to" matter as well, but that is not the argument. The point is not that your list in in the minority, it is *why* you are in the minority. The quantity of spam on this list has been annoying for awhile now. It is getting really tiresome now. Once the spammers get your address they sell it to other spammers, so the quantity will only increase from now on. Don't the spammers also "win" if they annoy enough of the knowledgeable people on this list that they leave? Even if they don't the people relying on that expertise surely lose. > If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include > disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen. > The only alternative I can imagine is moderation. I doubt you or anyone else has the time or inclination. Personally I have rearranged my .procmailrc so this list gets processed after my spam filters. That leads to the risk I will miss some valid postings, but so be it. If that does not catch the spam, I will unsubscribe from the list. altogether. -- Jim McMaster mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
