Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself
Putting this back on list.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself
Date: Wednesday 11 May 2011
From: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net>
To: Lisi <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
Lisi wrote:
> I have used this list for some years now, and find it to be very well
managed.
> It is not "abused" in any real sense of the word and certainly runs very
It is abused, just like virtually any email system, because it receives
spam (attempts). This is not an indication of the quality of its admins
or lack thereof.
I see one of the main reasons spam emails actually make it to the list
is the policy of allowing non subscribers to email the list. I find this
policy, even though it's commendable, not something suited for this day
and age of email abuse.
> smoothly. The open policy does indeed have the occasional downside, but to
> my mind this is outweighed by the advantages. And we are all supposed to be
> users of FLOSS, and to believe in open standards not proprietary dictats.
A mailing list that only allows subscribers to send and receive email is
not closed. Anyone is still allowed to subscribe. It does not in my
opinion mean you're dictating anything. It just means you take email
abuse seriously and try your best to prevent spam from reaching people.
If preventing non subscribers from sending email is too big of a step
you can always automatically moderate emails from non subscribers and
only then release the emails when they're found to not be spam.
> You are, of course, free to start a mailing list of your own that adheres to
> your choice of rules, or to join or continue in any of the other "better"
run
> lists that you mention.
Someone mentioned I should volunteer. Starting my own lists is not
really what he referred to, besides that ignores the fact I (have) run
my own lists.
I didn't say other lists are better run, you're putting words in my
mouth. I merely commented on a different policy, without giving it a
value judgement at all.
> The spam filters, moreover, would work even better if people like you did
not
> reply to spam.
I beg to differ. Any well run spam filter would not be negatively
influenced by someone replying to a spam email. Neither do I think this
list's spamfilters would.
Best regards,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
-------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: