On Fri, Feb 12, 1999 at 10:38:57PM -0500, rfi from Rich Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 11:25:56PM -0800, Daniel Eisenbud wrote:
> 
> > This whole mailing list situation is really silly.  When Michael Elkins
> > ran the lists at Harvey Mudd College, they were open, and there was
> > practically no spam.  The new maintainer has admitted that the reason
> 
> The world is not what it used to be, I run a number of lists also and the
> short form is that any list whose address is on a web site will get spammed
> daily.  The mutt-* lists should be closed.

mutt-dev _has_ to be open or at least have legitimate posts from
non-subscribers forwarded to it in a timely manner.  Why?  Because every
single copy of mutt says in the "mutt -v" output that one should send
bug reports to mutt-dev.  It's really simple.  There are other ways of
controlling spam on lists, and we should by all means look into them.
Even if we changed the "mutt -v" output to point to another address,
there still are, and will be essentially forever, copies of mutt with
the old address.  And any new list for bugs to be sent to would have the
same problem.

Or if the list maintainer is willing to commit to forwarding all
unapproved legitimate posts to the list in a timely manner, I will be
satisfied and shut up.  Posts of mine from another address have _simply_
_disappeared_ in the past, and _that_ is not acceptable.  Nor is his new
idea of bouncing a message saying one should be subscribed to the list
in order to post.  That would actually do the job very nicely for
mutt-users, but it is not OK for mutt-dev, because people who aren't
interested in hearing all the development stuff going by (admittedly
there's not as much these days) should still be able to submit bug
reports, so those of us who are maintaining the code can make mutt
better for everyone.

I will be glad to help in any way.  For instance, I would be glad to
take responsibility for forwarding unapproved posts to mutt-dev, if that
would be helpful.

-Daniel

-- 
Daniel Eisenbud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to