From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 2 09:33:00 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F1337B404 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out003.verizon.net (out003pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.103]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA95943FE0 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:32:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([129.44.60.214]) by out003.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030602163258.WZZO4805.out003.verizon.net@mac.com> for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:32:58 -0500 Message-ID: <3EDB7C40.5040207@mac.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:33:04 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <200306021314.h52DEWPh015217@clunix.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200306021314.h52DEWPh015217@clunix.cl.msu.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.75.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out003.verizon.net from [129.44.60.214] at Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:32:58 -0500 Subject: List Administration, was: Re: your mail X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:33:00 -0000 Jerry McAllister wrote: [ ... ] > Gee whiz. Another round of this argument. Seems it comes along > about every 2 or 3 months and is all the same and seems to generate > as much unnecessary traffic as spamers do. It just indicates that > the advocates do not understand the function or operation of this list. Modern mailing lists are capable of holding unapproved postings for moderator approval. If was moderated, the spam would be read once by a member of the team of moderators, and then discarded rather than being forwarded to all of the members of the list. Legitimate list traffic from members of the list would be approved by default, with a few exceptions (ie, administrivia postings like "unsubscribe"). Legitmate list traffic from non-members of the list would be approved after moderator review. If there is sufficient interest-- being defined as at least two other people who are willing to act as moderators (*)-- I'll set up a moderated version of this list and let the user community decide for themselves. -Chuck ------- (*): Having several people moderate makes the task load easier, tends to balance out bursts of held postings, and makes a second opinion available for boundary cases.