|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Message-ID: <01a501c14f60$a172e200$01c8a8c0@default> From: "David Howe" <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk> To: "Email List: Nanog" <nanog@merit.edu> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 19:48:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu "Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com> wrote: > Oh god, not that again. Listen, if you want a forum where anybody can say > anything to anybody about anything at any time, then start one, go read > alt.flame. In neither case will you find me there. In the real life of > nominal grownups, some things are limited in some places at some times. *shrug* Most mailing lists I am on seem to get by fine without overt moderation - including this one. Most moderated lists I am on seem to get by with thread killing - an argument is allowed to run for a few posts, then the moderator posts that he is officially killing the thread, and further posts on that will be rejected (and should be taken to email). Prefiltering to suit *any* one individuals opinion of what is or isn't on topic seems highly suspect for any list, and unacceptable on a list supposedly to define policy. Note I have never read the list in question, so am arguing on general principles here, not this specific instance..... perhaps a parallel list setup (with $listname and $listname-filtered) could be set up with posts making it to the second list only with moderator approval?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |