On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:39:58PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > The problem with this analysis is that it assigns greater value to > contributions from subscribers than to contributions from > non-subscribers. But often the failure to accept clues from > "outsiders" causes working groups to do harm I don't believe this is true, for any normal definition of "often". "Occasionally" might be believable. > - and filtering messages > in the #2 category increases this tendency. One could just as easily argue that such filtering would decrease the tendency, because people would modify their behavior to subscribe to groups they cared about. Also, one could just as easily argue that working groups are just as likely to be harmed by distracting comments from outsiders... > The occasional rejection > of #2 messages can be very harmful. Seems more likely to me that the amount of harm would be lost in the normal noise of ietf processes. Regards Kent > On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:01 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > 1. on-topic messages from subscribers > > 2. on-topic messages from non-subscribers > > 3. noise from subscribers > > 4. noise from non-subscribers > > 5. pure spam such as advertisements for loan sharks > > > >In this list, only #1 is clearly "good." It is good to avoid rejecting > >#2, but there is surely no harm in sometimes delaying #2. If the > >senders of any rejected or "false positive" #2 received an informative > >non-delivery report so that they could retransmit, what would be the > >harm? > > > >SpamAssassin is reported to be better than 60% accurate. #2 is surely > >rare compared to #1. Thus, as long as SpamAssassin white-lists all > >subscribers, there would be no harm in the occasional rejection of #2. -- Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be kent@xxxxxxxxx,kent@xxxxxxxxxxxx lonesome." p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 -- Mark Twain SIP: 81202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx