[NCLUG] users only

[Matt Taggart]

"J. Paul Reed" writes...

> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Matt Taggart wrote:
> 
> > I also hate it nclug posts have blug or clue cc'd and I get "moderated".
> > IHMO there are better answers for dealing with spam than limiting open
> > discussion.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how many posts to NCLUG in the last... oh, let's say 6
> months have been from non-members that weren't spammers?

We could compare the list of subscribers to the mail archive. That won't be 
totally correct since the list of subscribers has changed over that 6 
months. I don't have time to do it anyway...  I think it's small but 
non-zero. We've certainly seen people run into the problem with the 
blug/clue lists.

My main problem is having to change the way it should be just to deal with 
the scum of the earth. It's effectively saying to legitimate senders, "We 
aren't sure what you have to say is worthy, it will be held for an 
indefinite period of time until someone can review it." Surely we can do 
better.

Can we at least agree that pursuing a spam-assassin solution first is a 
good idea. If we can't fix it that way then we can consider closing the 
list or something else. OK?

> > There is a proposed solution to this problem,
> >
> > http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to
> -00.txt
> 
> The fact that the IETF has a draft on this is pathetic; don't they have
> better things to do with their time (like... oh say, revising the SMTP
> protocol altogether so spamming is more difficult? I know... easier
> said...)

Well obviously this is an issue lots of people care about, why shouldn't 
they work on it? Technically, we should all be out working on ending world 
hunger instead of messing around with computers since that would be "a 
better thing to do with our time".

-- 
Matt Taggart
taggart at fc.hp.com