From owner-freebsd-current Tue May 11 3:15:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5AD15BF6; Tue, 11 May 1999 03:15:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA30302; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:15:08 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Chuck Robey Cc: Garrett Wollman , Mark Murray , "Thomas T. Veldhouse" , "Jonathan M. Bresler" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SPAM References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 11 May 1999 12:15:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: Chuck Robey's message of "Mon, 10 May 1999 17:10:38 -0400 (EDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chuck Robey writes: > Garrett's points are why I sugggested that it would not be a useable > approach for -questions, newbies, and mabye hackers, 'cause they all get > a fair amount of posts like what Garrett describes. Current and > committers do NOT get such an audience, and the argument doesn't hold > for those lists, which do get spammed. Oh no? I regularly send mail to -current and -committers from at least three different addresses, none of which are subscribed. Listen up. We've been through this before. We all agreed it wouldn't work. If you wanna know why, search the archives instead of making the problem considerably worse by starting (and fueling) threads such as this. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message