Message-ID: <3DBC0AC5.2010602@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:48:21 +0000
From: "Stewart Bryant" <stewart.bryant@virgin.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <LOBBIDNOENMNHIBGDCKBOEBADDAA.g3wkl@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: LF: Spam via reflector
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

There are two approaches to requiring registration. Either it's
automatic, or it's manual controlled by the list owner.

If it is controlled by the list owner, this can be quite a
lot of work and there is a delay waiting action. Remember it's
not just new joiners that have to be managed, it's ISP
changes as well.

If it is an automatic process, then the spammers have programs
to do that as well.

As far as I am concerned, I am used to the delete key, and
I vote for whatever is easiest for John.

Stewart G3YSX


John W Gould wrote:
> It's a few months ago that we looked into this and I can't instantly recall
> the downside, but it either added an administration burden and/or affected
> those who access the reflector with more than one e-mail address.
> 
> Unless I see postings opposing changes in the next two or three days I'll
> discuss making configuration changes to reflector with the Sysop.
> 
> My own view is that I am so used to dealing with spam on my e-mail accounts
> that removing it at source from this reflector doesn't make a significant
> enough improvement to overcome the disadvantages of a re-configured
> reflector.  However, I am quite content to go with the majority view!
> 
> 73 John, G3WKL
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]On Behalf Of WarmSpgs@aol.com
>>Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 18:11
>>To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>Subject: Re: LF: Spam via reflector
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 10/25/02 4:33:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>>dsergeant@connectfree.co.uk writes:
>>
>><< Perhaps the time has come to change this reflector into a
>> 'subscribers only can post' system.  Despite objections raised in
>> the past most other mailing lists operate that way and it certainly
>> would kill these time wasting mails. >>
>>
>>This proposal has my endorsement, for what it's worth.
>>
>>I do not see the point of allowing people to post to this or any
>>other list,
>>who themselves are unable to read what has been posted there.
>>Not only does
>>it encourage promulgation of spam, that's about the only thing it
>>CAN do in
>>practice.
>>
>>Who can truly contribute to any discussion if they are unaware of what is
>>currently going on in that discussion?  Would we, in our parliaments or
>>legislatures or general assemblies, willingly elect
>>representatives who only
>>show up long enough to deliver their own speech and then go home without
>>hearing what any of the other members say?
>>
>>There is nothing restrictive or exclusive about who is permitted
>>to subscribe
>>to this list.  So I say, let those who sign up to listen be also the ones
>>permitted to speak.
>>
>>Regards,
>>John Davis
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>