ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: filtering of mailing lists

2001-05-22 12:10:02
Suresh,

I don't mind having WG lists moderate contributions from non-subscribers,
provided the moderator can act in a timely fashion (say within a day or
so) and the moderator allows any post that is even arguably on-topic for
the list.

for reasons already stated, I doubt that a single moderator could be
found for the main ietf list.  but I would like to see an experiment
with the 'multiple per-message moderators chosen at random from the 
subcriber list' proposals.

the problem with the NAT list was that posts from non-susbcribers 
were, apparently, simply discarded.  as you point out, this has since 
been fixed. 

Keith

p.s. I don't think the question of whether we inconvience the legitimate
poster or the spammer more is the relevant one.  a better question is 
which filtering policy allows our organization to function more effectively -
given that 'effectiveness' includes honoring our principle of open participation
and being open to good ideas from all sources.

Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pyda Srisuresh <srisuresh(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: filtering of mailing lists

--- Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Here is a suggestion.

Require people to subscribe to a list to post to the list.

worked great for the NAT WG list, which successfully used this technique
to discourage input from people harmed by NAT.

NAT WG never had a separate subscribe-to-post requirement, FYI.

The previous list as well as the current list (hosted by the IETF) 
required a single subscription to receive as well as to post. 

With the current list, messages sent by folks not subscribed to the 
list would be directed to list administrator to permit posting to 
the list. List administrator would have to manually approve the posting.

Now, do you object to a separate subscribe-to-post requirement?
Would this discourage or inconvenience you (the occassional non-spam 
contributor to a non-subscribed-to-receive-list) or the spammer more?

If the answer is debatable (or) the frequent spammer is likely to be 
discouraged at least 50% of the time, the approach is worth a try.