[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [h-e-w] spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only

From: David Vanderschel
Subject: Re: [h-e-w] spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only
Date: 30 Dec 2003 03:21:19 -0600

On Tuesday, December 30, "Michael R. Wolf" <address@hidden> wrote:
>David Vanderschel <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Monday, December 29, "Michael R. Wolf"
>> <address@hidden> wrote a rant the main point of
>> which would seem to be:
>>>Adding more impedance in this way would certainly cut me off
>>>even more when I need help the most.

>> I hope others have not missed the fact mentioned in my
>> message with subject "members only" that the list is
>> no longer being moderated, a fact which seems to me to
>> render Michael's rant moot (even though his subject
>> would seem to indicate that he had seen that message).

>I understood that message to mean that this list had
>rapidly moved from being an unmoderated open list, to
>a moderated list, to a closed list. Am I mistaken?

Yes.  Though what I wrote is unambiguous with respect
to Michael's issue, when I wrote that I had configured
the list "to restrict posting to subscribers only"
"without moderation", I was oversimplifying a bit.  It
is still an unmoderated list for subscribers; and
anyone can subscribe.  However, a post from an account
which is not subscribed _is_ moderated unless the
account is on a list of non-subscribers whose posts
are to be accepted anyway.  (You know, guys like

Michael was posting from an address at which he is not
subscribed, so I did have to moderate his post.
However, I have added that address to the list of
those which can post without moderation, so the delay
which concerns him will occur no more.

Meanwhile, _I_ still have to see the spam.  :(
(It is fairly easy to reject by email.  I can also
configure accounts which are to be unilaterally

>Perhaps I could rephrase my concern - could you humor me by redefining
>"rant" to

>    Requiring
>    Authorization
>    Negates
>    The accessability of the list to those who need help

>I'd have used "diminishes", but it doesn't start with "N"....:-)

Yes, that seems to sum up Michael's position well
enough.  (I would have been apologizing for the "T".  ;-)

>I don't yet see my point as moot. Perhaps you could
>help me. Is it trivially easy for an outsider to post
>(or gain membership), and thus gain access to the
>core benefit of the list?

Yes.  To subscribe, anyone can just go here:

(As I pointed out in a previous message, you can
configure your subscription to disable email.)

Non-subscribers can still post; but moderation delay
will occur if the poster is not on the list of
otherwise-authorized posters.  As with Michael, I will
add otherwise-authorized posters as I encounter them.
(Not only does this expedite matters for everyone, but
it also saves work for me if they keep posting.)

>A list with no newcomers will certainly be of limited use, ...

Indeed.  I am surprised that Michael would presume
that anyone would allow such a dismal state of affairs
to exist.  I regard his argument as a reductio ad
absurdum which might better have alerted him to the
fact that he had made an erroneous assumption or
inference somewhere along the line.

  David V.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]