Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1091 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2002 10:47:23 -0000 Received: from murphys.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.225) by mailstore with SMTP; 27 Oct 2002 10:47:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 459 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2002 10:46:52 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 27 Oct 2002 10:46:52 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 185kuk-0007Uz-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:45:02 +0000 Received: from [213.218.77.54] (helo=cmailENV2.svr.pol.co.uk) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 185kuj-0007Uq-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:45:01 +0000 Received: from [62.21.150.99] (helo=w8k3f0.freeler.nl) by cmailENV2.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 185kuh-0001IX-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:45:00 +0000 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021027114110.00a6bec0@POP3.freeler.nl> X-Sender: FRE0000086604@POP3.freeler.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:45:47 +0100 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "Dick Rollema" In-reply-to: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: LF: Spam via reflector Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0tests=BIG_FONT,IN_REP_TO,MAILTO_LINK,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02version=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit To All from PA0SE

If removing spam from the reflector is easily done I would be in favour of it. But I don't like forcing the sysop into a major operation.
And the delete key is always within easy reach of course...

73, Dick, PA0SE

At 09:51 27-10-02 +0000, you 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
>
>