Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I respectfully disagree. If we can spend the time to read and > answer the poster's question, the poster can spend five minutes > to subscribe/unsubscribe. > > For reference, see the netiquette item on posting to newsgroups > and asking for replies by email.
I am aware of newsgroup etiquette, but I consider a newsgroup to be different from a mailing list devoted to helping users. Besides, subscribing to and unsubscribing from an unknown mailing list are much more annoying processes than they are for newsgroups. I suppose we can only "agree to disagree" on this one. >> 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. > > Right now, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is providing free relaying for spammers > to all its subscribers. So does any mailing list with open subscription. I find your choice of wording strange, sort of like saying that `sendmail' provides free transmission of spam. That may be so, but that was not its intention, and the fact that it's misused is no reason to cripple its intended use. >> If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include >> disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen. > > Mmm... What would you think of having the list software > automatically add a special header (say X-Non-Subscriber) to every > mail sent by a non-subscriber ? I see where you're getting at, and I would have absolutely no objections to that.
