Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:55:49 +0100 From: Ceri <setantae@submonkey.net> To: "Philip J. Koenig" <pjklist@ekahuna.com> Cc: Questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: hub.freebsd.org spam policy Message-ID: <20020405125549.GB18350@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20020405115245614.AAA428@empty1.ekahuna.com@pc02.ekahuna.com> References: <20020405105408.GA17235@submonkey.net> <20020405115245614.AAA428@empty1.ekahuna.com@pc02.ekahuna.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 03:52:46AM -0800, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > On 5 Apr 2002, at 11:54, Ceri boldly uttered:=20 > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 02:27:02AM -0800, Philip J. Koenig wrote: >=20 > > Also, I have posted to this list in the past from at least 4 different > > addresses, and I don't see why I should have to subscribe with each one. >=20 > You mean like almost every other email list on earth? C'mon now, I=20 > think we're grasping at straws here. =20 Not really. You see, I don't actually care about this issue. I just posted to this thread to make a few facts clear, and then my last post was just filled with my humble opinions. I'm not trying to defend FreeBSD list policy, so I've no need to grasp at straws. I'm just saying. > > You also should bear in mind that developers have @FreeBSD.org addresse= s, > > so the policies currently in place work for them too, whereas using a > > subscription option as you suggest wouldn't. >=20 > Well I'm not sure what that proves. I do however know that I had to=20 > email the freebsd postmaster at his own personal domain in order for=20 > him to receive any email from me until we found out what rule was=20 > blocking me. I'm sure it's not the first time such an independent=20 > mail account became necessary. Oh, it doesn't prove anything, and I didn't mean to imply it did. I was just saying that changing the lists to subscriber-only posting and lifting the "you must have reverse DNS in place" restriction wouldn't be a perfect solution. > I also know that there are a plethora of local user measures that can=20 > be used to address the spam problem, and I really don't think one=20 > should assume that there can be no distinction between how list=20 > traffic is dealt with and how personal addresses are dealt with. True. I don't think freefall would cope too well with 400+ copies of procmail firing up every second though. > > And I know other lists that have the same policies (nom-steer, for one). >=20 > Oh I'm sure there are a few. But if I had to make a wild assumption,=20 > I suspect the percentage setup that way are a small fraction of 1% of=20 > all public lists. Well, throwing wild assumptions to the lions for the time being in favour of facts: of all the unmoderated lists I'm subscribed to, 100% of them are set up this way (I don't admin any lists). Perhaps I'm unrepresentative, I'm not sure, but each of us can only speak from their experience, not being privy to the administrative policy of every list on the net. Ceri --=20 keep a mild groove on To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020405125549.GB18350>