Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31608 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2002 09:48:27 -0000 Received: from warrior.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.227) by mailstore with SMTP; 27 Oct 2002 09:48:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 1922 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2002 09:48:00 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 27 Oct 2002 09:48:00 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 185k12-0007MY-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:47:28 +0000 Received: from [194.73.73.92] (helo=carbon.btinternet.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 185k12-0007MO-00; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:47:28 +0000 Received: from host213-122-117-200.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.117.200] helo=presario-1920) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 185k11-00051c-00; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:47:27 +0000 From: "John W Gould" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:51:24 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-reply-to: Subject: RE: LF: Spam via reflector Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02, USER_AGENT_OUTLOOKversion=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group 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 > >