Re: *** bluber *** Re: Male xxxxxx enhancement formula^
Michael Marsh wrote:
>On 5/24/05, Ian Greenhoe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 23:15 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>>>Am 2005-05-24 13:28:04, schrieb Ian Greenhoe:
>>>>3) Reject non-subscribed senders.
>>The question here is what's less acceptable? A bunch-o-spam or not
>>having non-list subscribers be able to ask questions. I think that the
>>level of spam is annoying, but less annoying than having to have people
>>subscribe to the list. So, I agree with you, but I do not feel as
>>vehemently as you apparently do.
>Requiring people to subscribe in order to post is worse than annoying.
> If a mailing list requires subscription to post, and I'm not
>generally interested in the list traffic, I won't post, because the
>list traffic is unacceptable. In the case of one software package I
>use, that's the only way of providing any feedback to the authors.
>Consequently, though I have suggestions for improving the software, I
>don't send them in. Similarly, to file a bug report for gcc, you have
>to sign up for a bugzilla account. I'm not going to deal with another
>account (and another password), just to gripe about silliness in g++.
>Your main avenue for communication with your user base *must* be open,
>or there's little point in making your software open. It can be a
>mailing list, a newsgroup, a comment address, or a web form, but if
>users have to join a "club" to contact you, you've done something
Requiring people to subscribe to the list is not an unreasonable
request. That's what the gentoo lists do that I subscribe. Furthermore,
participants can use something like gmane, as I do, to read the
list at their occasional leisure, without their mail boxes filling up.
Those noobs can subscribe, get help, and leave as they inevitable do
If you want to 'kick the ass of the spammers, here is the slickest
thing I've seen. Here's the best part of this approach:
Remember, I'm doing all of this not to reduce the amount of incoming
spam. That gets detected and filed very reliably, anyway. The sole
purpose is to hurt the spammers. And I'm thoroughly enjoying watching my
spamd log now, as I'm perfectly sure that each of those connections
comes from a spammer who has spammed me before.
Sure it's one of those OpenBSD zealots, but hey, if it works whynot.
The trick would be for some (Debian) genius to put this into a package
regular debian folks could easily install.....
Hurt the spammers....