Re: Actually [Re: Some spam]
On Fri 21 Apr 2017 at 12:42:58 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 04/21/2017 10:51 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, fc wrote:
> >>Actually -- does anyone monitor this list for this type of stuff?
> >
> >Yes, listmaster@lists.debian.org does.
> >
> >>I see these types of things come through periodically -- and 1 delete
> >>on the front end could prevent a lot of woe.
> >
> >We discard large swaths of spam. Some inevitably makes it through.
> >People replying to known spam doesn't help, though.
> >
> >See https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam for what
> >you can do to help
>
> There lies a significant problem.
Significance is in the eye of the beholder.
> It states *IN PART* "There is a "report as spam" button in on the list
> archive page of each message."
>
> I believe the design of that button is flawed.
It's not a Golden Rectangle?
> It *ONLY* asks if respondent considers that message to be "SPAM".
> It DOES *NOT*:
> 1. ask for confirmation.
You want a button to confirm what you have just reported as spam?
> 2. ask WHY message should be considered spam.
Everyone knows that spam is generally unsolicited, bulk email.
> Also, it does not apparently record *WHO* flagged a message as "spam".
> I verified that point by experiment.
Privacy? A pointless waste of time?
> There ONE person on this list who routinely disagrees with me.
Only one?
> I chose one of his most spurious posts.
> Using https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/... I viewed one of his sillier
> replies.
> I chose to report it as spam.
You consider spam to be postings which have content which disagree with
something you have said?
> That was apparent end of the evaluation process.
> I'm *NOT* suggesting that the poser should be banned.
Phew! They can sleep soundly tonight.
> He occasionally posts useful comments.
>
> Who/What is appropriate authority to address suggestions for improving the
> situation.
The only significant situation is that there is spam in the archives and
very, very few people to deal with it. That is basically the thrust of
Don Armstrong's point. Are you volunteering to help deal with it? Perhaps
not. Extensive training to carry out the task would be required to ensure
that personal agendas don't lead to unwarranted destruction.
--
Brian.
Reply to: