[recipient list trimmed.] > Furthermore: Stop delaying messages. The delay is unacceptable. The > excuse for the delay, namely manual review, is also unacceptable. I think the other suggestions are worth considering, but can't agree with this one. Spam significantly reduces the signal-to-noise ratio of a list to the point that it's impossible to get work done, and at present we don't have a good way of effectively filtering the list while keeping the list open to contributions from outsiders that doesn't involve human perusal of such messages, hence delay. To me it seems unlikely to be vital that messages from a non-subscriber reach the list immediately - as long as the message gets forwarded within a day or two, and as long as messages that experience such delays are given adequate consideration by the working group. So if there's a working group last call that ends on day X, and the non-subscriber's message doesn't show up until day X+3 due to delay, it should still be considered as relevant input to the group. But except for such deadlines, what is that non-subscriber responding to that can't wait a day or two, if not some activity on the list? No working groups that I'm familar with make decisions that quickly. As for the legal arguments, the place to decide those - if it's really important enough to go to the trouble - is in a court of law. Arguments about such matters by engineers are rarely fruitful. Keith