On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Joe Touch wrote:
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
I almost agree with your distinction but I want to make one clarification.
To me, it's not that spam is defined by user, it's that non-spam is
defined by user.
What this means from an implementation point of view is that non-spam is
almost trivial to configure and then more or less runs itself, or at
least distributes the management to the subscribers. Thus the
cost-benefit ratio for this particular spam control mechanism is
negligible from the point of view of the *volunteer* list host.
We have to remember that the bulk of IETF mailing lists are hosted and
managed by volunteers. All mechanisms other than correlation by user
have a labor intensive component. Such mechanisms are not excluded but
they are impractical for volunteers.
While I agree that "user ease" is of paramount concern, I do not believe
it is a priority concern considering how the IETF as an organization
"manages" its mailing lists. Now, if you want to talk about
centralizing the management of the IETF lists, then the priority concern
issues can be different.