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

Re: lists.debian.org vs google groups

On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:25:32AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
> Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:28:59AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>I'll never accept this reasoning. To my mind it takes openness to a 
> >>level that just causes unnecessary grief for many legitimate users.
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >What unnecessary grief?
> >
> >Take a look through the debian-user archive for March 2006.  Count how 
> >many spam messages actually hit the list.
> > 
> >
> Yes, I did that with Pacsal's help (see below), and take your point. The 
> absolute numbers of unblocked spams makes it difficult for anyone to 
> whine about it too much. No spam at all would be even better though, and 
> I still haven't read a reasoned case for leaving the list open for 
> posting to The World, subscribed or not.

Well there were over 800 messages that came through from

Making people subscribe is a barrier to entry, and we want to make it as
easy as possible for people to contribute. We have a list which is
subscriber only (debian-ctte@l.d.o). There are a number of people who
when they receive the message telling them they must be a subscriber to
post, simply move on to something else. My experience in other places is
similar. People think it's not really worth the effort and move on.

> I take your point here too; none of these disussions have much to do 
> with debian. I just needed some honest and accurate figures really. 
> Maybe an automated monthly post summarising the number of posts received 
> / number of spams blocked / number of spams passed through would serve 
> to squash threads like this before they begin.

If I had a way to automatically count the number of spam messages that
had made it through the list, I wouldn't be using that tool to do stats
but to actually do the filtering.


Pasc (with his listmaster hat on)
Pascal Hakim                                          0403 411 672
Do Not Bend

Reply to: