[10372] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Grumpy Old PACS-Lers -Reply
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Lester)
Tue Jul 2 20:48:13 1996
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 12:19:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dan Lester <DLESTER@bsu.idbsu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Well, I agree with the GleeBopper more than
disagree, but this time he's way off base, as is
another I usually agree with, Tom Dowling. They go
on about whether or not the list ought to accept
postings from nonsubscribers, but all of their
arguments are irrelevant to PACS-L. Let me
explain.
PACS-L is a fully moderated list. ALL postings, no
matter from whom, are routed to the editor(s) who
decide whether or not to forward the post for
distribution, no matter who or where it comes from.
Most lists, however, are NOT fully moderated, as
the listowner doesn't have the time or inclination to
do so. The best single way to reduce the
distribution of spam is to have such lists set to
accept postings from subscribers only. Most
spammers blast their junk to all lists (or as many as
they can get out before being shut down), and do
not subscribe to the lists first. Thus the spam is
automatically caught and then killed by the
moderator, who receives the postings from
nonmembers only for advance approval. I'll also
note that the problem with spam isn't "just one more
message to use the delete key on", it is the
discussion of the spam that follows it. I can
guarantee on almost any list the vast majority will
just quietly delete the spam, but that there will be a
few who will flame (to the list, to which the spammer
isn't subscribed anyway), a few more who will flame
the flamers, those who will call for some sense and
sanity, those who will fuss about the cost of having
to download spam (though their complaints just
continue the extra cost by continuing the debate),
and so forth. THAT is the real problem with spam.
I can state that on the lists I own, both library and
nonlibrary (advanc-l, arie-l, buslib-l, cdromlan,
circplus, anglican, postcard, postmark, words-l, and
a half dozen BSU-only or Boise-only lists), I've
NEVER rejected a posting from a member posting
from an alternative address. Yes, the posting is
delayed, but that encourages the poster to unsub
from the old address and sub from the new.
Those of us with multiple addresses (I'm
alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu and dan@84.com also)
can receive mail on one address and post from all
by simply subscribing from all addresses and
setting the "posting only" addresses to nomail. To
do this takes just a minute and is well worth it in
convenience to me, and to other listowners.
Sure, there are mail systems that are funky and mail
administrators who change addressing and such
much too often. I can't solve that for people, but I'm
always willing to help them out with mail problems
from my end. Sometimes I can even give them
clues on how to deal with their own mail system or
their local techies. Naturally, some just can't be
worked with, and I can't do much about that.
But, I hope that people won't confuse the problems
and try to solve one problem with a different
solution.
dan, listowner and postmaster
Dan Lester, Network Information Coordinator
Boise State University Library, Boise, Idaho, 83725
USA
voice: 208-385-1235 fax: 208-385-1394
dlester@bsu.idbsu.edu OR
alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Cyclops' Internet Toolbox: http://cyclops.idbsu.edu
"How can one fool make another wise?" Kansas,
1979.
