From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261362AbTDDV6s (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:58:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261366AbTDDV6s (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:58:48 -0500 Received: from adsl-67-120-62-187.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([67.120.62.187]:8714 "EHLO exchange.macrolink.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261362AbTDDV6r (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:58:47 -0500 Message-ID: <11E89240C407D311958800A0C9ACF7D1A33E26@EXCHANGE> From: Ed Vance To: "'Matti Aarnio'" Cc: William Scott Lockwood III , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: your mail Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:10:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 12:38 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote: > [snip] > A somewhat better anti-spam filter method, than what we use presently > is to use strictly CLOSED list -- e.g. must be a member to post. > I have seen what kind of pains closed lists are, I even moderate > couple small ones. > > However we are deliberately running "open for posting, subject to > filters" policy, which lets questions and reports to come from > non-subscribers. > Perhaps there is a middle ground. Leave the list open, but require a confirmation reply prior to passing along posts from addresses that: 1. are not members of the list, AND 2. have not previously done a proper confirmation reply. The unconfirmed posts would time out and disappear after a decent interval, to prevent constipation. So, anybody could still post, the members would not be inconvenienced, and non-members would be inconvenienced only on their first post from each address they post from. This would preserve the "real time" nature of the list, while gaining the assurance that all who post are life-forms, even if they live in front of a keyboard and have no real life. ;-) Of course, this would require storage for the list of confirmed addresses and pending unconfirmed posts, and the bandwidth and other overhead of the infrequent confirmation messages. Just a thought. Cheers, Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Vance edv (at) macrolink (dot) com Macrolink, Inc. 1500 N. Kellogg Dr Anaheim, CA 92807 ----------------------------------------------------------------