Chris,
Would you prefer an open group to have more spam'bots than real members??
that is what the "registration" is for on Majordomo as well, all sub
requests go to the owner. These days one needs to be able to weed out the
"address harvesters" to PROTECT the membership. Due to failings like this
(usenet groups) I used to get 250 spam messages a day!! Its down to about
20-30 now and the BT spamtrap get the majority of those, but I would rather
not have them. Once your address is on the spammers list you never get off
it.
Remember one "undesirable message" can trip the family protection software
and has almost led to a divorce in one case reported recently. XYL asked the
husband what the hell he was doing on the PC!! She took quite a lot of
convincing it was not his fault.
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: LF: An "LF-reflector" Yahoo group instead .....PLEASE
Yes, I agree with you Mal, and that's why I sent the 'no thanks' message
after Roger outlined the "advantages"....and it's got even worse now someone
has suggested vetting group members!
Chris, G4AYT.
----- Original Message -----
From: mal hamilton
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: LF: An "LF-reflector" Yahoo group instead .....PLEASE
A moderator !!!!!!!!!!!!! or a censor !!!!!!!!!! and if you have an
opinion that differs from others you should be BANNED.
No discussion, no debate in other words a DICTORSHIP, hardly democratic.
What next ???????????
I can manage without any of it and get on with amateur radio and
experimentation. These past few days without the reflector has not hindered
my amateur radio activities and I do not need to be vetted by others !!
Do what you like but leave me OUT
G3KEV
----- Original Message -----
From: Alberto di Bene
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: LF: An "LF-reflector" Yahoo group instead .....PLEASE
On 5/24/2012 6:33 PM, g3zjo wrote:
Why not go for it and start it yourself.
We know some will not move so it will be an additional facility.
Please make sure it is has no taboo, f
frequencies, modes, opinions, or subjects rules, and no childish
sulking.
Another suggestion is to not make it an open group, meaning that each
request for membership should be
accompanied by a very short introductory message explaining why that
membership is requested.
Then the moderator(s) of the group will decide whether to accept it or
not. I suppose the same is done
presently with the Majordomo mailer.
And, if that introductory message is convincing, but up to a point...
then the moderator can accept the individual,
but putting him in moderation status, meaning that every message from
him must be examined by the moderator(s)
before being published. The moderation status can be removed after a
couple of legitimate messages from the guy,
showing that he is not a troll or spammer.
I use this method on my soft_radio Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soft_radio/
with more than 2300 subscribers, and, if memory serves, I had just a
couple of cases where a spam message
got through in more than 8 years of the existence of that group.
73 Alberto I2PHD
|
