Patrick R. McManus wrote: > [Joe Touch: Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:21:28AM -0800] >>Lists for open discussion should require such hoops for participation, >>esp. when there are plenty of reasonable, sufficiently correlated >>identifiers than "not a list member" to identify spam. ... > I think you're defining the calculus of list policy wholly in terms of > the poster and not at all in terms of the large numbers of readers. I just have a different optimization > The e2e-interest blacklist is new. It appears to be a reaction to the > embarrassing amount of spam that that list has redistributed over the > last couple of years It's a little over a year since we converted from full-open to spam-limited. The transition was motivated largely by poorly configured automated virus detection software, which implosion-spammed the list too frequently. Since this was the result of user (mis)configuration, I'm not as willing as you to make configuration management a user-participation event. > Clearly, the brand new system is not a useful datapoint yet, (if you had checked our website, you would know it wasn't brand new.) > but the totally unregulated nature of the list whose > results dictated the need for the new policy is a strong indictment > against pure open lists in the current climate. There I at least agree- pure open (no spam filter, no user filter) was insufficient. I believe that spam should be filtered out because of WHAT it is, not because of WHO it comes from. > At some point a legitimate submission will be snagged as a false > positive by that system. My original post had details on this - like the IETF suggestion, our list puts spam in a folder for moderator confirmation. False positives are corrected there. --- I do believe that non-subscribers have just as much reason and permission to post to these (mine and the IETF) lists. I support a system that allows spam if the user subscribes (an issue you have not yet addressed). The main issue here is about the rule for the filter. We all want less spam. The difference is: - to me, spam is defined by content - to you, spam is defined by user and assumes a correlation between user and content Joe