[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [h-e-w] spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only
From: |
David Vanderschel |
Subject: |
Re: [h-e-w] spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only |
Date: |
30 Dec 2003 03:21:19 -0600 |
On Tuesday, December 30, "Michael R. Wolf" <address@hidden> wrote:
>David Vanderschel <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Monday, December 29, "Michael R. Wolf"
>> <address@hidden> wrote a rant the main point of
>> which would seem to be:
>>>Adding more impedance in this way would certainly cut me off
>>>even more when I need help the most.
>> I hope others have not missed the fact mentioned in my
>> message with subject "members only" that the list is
>> no longer being moderated, a fact which seems to me to
>> render Michael's rant moot (even though his subject
>> would seem to indicate that he had seen that message).
>I understood that message to mean that this list had
>rapidly moved from being an unmoderated open list, to
>a moderated list, to a closed list. Am I mistaken?
Yes. Though what I wrote is unambiguous with respect
to Michael's issue, when I wrote that I had configured
the list "to restrict posting to subscribers only"
"without moderation", I was oversimplifying a bit. It
is still an unmoderated list for subscribers; and
anyone can subscribe. However, a post from an account
which is not subscribed _is_ moderated unless the
account is on a list of non-subscribers whose posts
are to be accepted anyway. (You know, guys like
Stallman.)
Michael was posting from an address at which he is not
subscribed, so I did have to moderate his post.
However, I have added that address to the list of
those which can post without moderation, so the delay
which concerns him will occur no more.
Meanwhile, _I_ still have to see the spam. :(
(It is fairly easy to reject by email. I can also
configure accounts which are to be unilaterally
rejected.)
>Perhaps I could rephrase my concern - could you humor me by redefining
>"rant" to
> Requiring
> Authorization
> Negates
> The accessability of the list to those who need help
>I'd have used "diminishes", but it doesn't start with "N"....:-)
Yes, that seems to sum up Michael's position well
enough. (I would have been apologizing for the "T". ;-)
>I don't yet see my point as moot. Perhaps you could
>help me. Is it trivially easy for an outsider to post
>(or gain membership), and thus gain access to the
>core benefit of the list?
Yes. To subscribe, anyone can just go here:
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-emacs-windows
(As I pointed out in a previous message, you can
configure your subscription to disable email.)
Non-subscribers can still post; but moderation delay
will occur if the poster is not on the list of
otherwise-authorized posters. As with Michael, I will
add otherwise-authorized posters as I encounter them.
(Not only does this expedite matters for everyone, but
it also saves work for me if they keep posting.)
>A list with no newcomers will certainly be of limited use, ...
Indeed. I am surprised that Michael would presume
that anyone would allow such a dismal state of affairs
to exist. I regard his argument as a reductio ad
absurdum which might better have alerted him to the
fact that he had made an erroneous assumption or
inference somewhere along the line.
Regards,
David V.
- Re: [h-e-w] spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only,
David Vanderschel <=