Re: Guidance for spam-control on IETF mailing lists

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Evil[1] is always the manipulator of good ideas. Evil[1] will fill the
greater good, if we do not 
act now. by act now I do not want a whitelist that is "publicly" maintained. 

-Wonko the Sane

[1]=U.C.E.

At 07:11 PM 3/16/02 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>> And if I'm going to read a list, I'd
>> much rather it be well run than just easy to post to. I define well
>> run as _both_ spam-free and lacking in moderation delays.
>
>I define "well run" as having a high signal-to-noise ratio,
>low moderation delay, a well-defined moderation policy that 
>evaluates messages visibly and impartially without considering 
>who authored them, and a low barrier to successful posting 
>of relevant content - even by non-subscribers.
>
>Expecting contributors to explicitly add their addresses to 
>a whitelist using obscure knowledge that is specific to 
>a particular list or software or moderator, and completely
>unrelated to the knowledge required to contribute to the list,
>imposes an unacceptably high barrier.
>
>But if we somehow made this process uniform from one list to 
>another, spammers would just add themselves to the whitelist.
>
>Keith
>
>p.s. though it is intriguing to consider - what if the instructions 
>for commenting on a draft were embedded somewhere within that
>draft, so people would actually have to read it before commenting? 
>
>


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]