Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...
Hal Vaughan <hal@thresholddigital.com> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:31:39 -0500:
> In this case, there could be other solutions. For example, where do
> people get the list address? If they find it on Debian web pages, it
> would be possible to set up a form with a CGI script to allow
> submitting an e-mail without being a subscriber and the CGI script
> could include a spam filter. It would also be possible to add to the
> mail list manager a routine that detects e-mail from non-subscribers.
> I know challenge-response tactics aren't always popular, but something
> like that could be set up so a newbie can ask a question without
> joining and crap is still filtered. It seems to me a
> challenge-response request is a fair price to pay if one wants help but
> does not want to subscribe. Or a general spam filter could be used so
> email from non subscribers is at least checked for valid respond to
> addresses and other anomalies.
That all sounds rather unnecessary.
Why not just run a spam filter on the input to the list like so many
other lists do? Anything detected as spam goes to a (voluntary)
moderator team to be approved/declined. Open list, no challenge
response each time the email address of the sender changes, and
there's not *that* much spam for a moderator team to deal with.
And all this discussion is strange anyway. I just looked through the
only debian list I subscribe to -- debian-laptop. It ends up in a
single folder in my mail -- anything that has a debian list header
attached to it ends up there, so any spam addressed to debian-laptop,
as opposed to me personally, goes through there. And I get 4 easily
detected spam/erroneous subscribe messages in one page of headers.
Since I go through the list with basically my hand on the delete key
as I watch the subject lines scroll by anyway, that causes me not very
much noticable pain.
Are people getting their debian email ending up direct in their inbox
instead of filtering to other folders? That's kindof silly, if so.
Reply to: