The fix for this issue is trivial. Every new signup should require a sponsor or 
a deposit of funds into a new member fund. Once a member has made a relevant 
post regarding a NANOG related item their funds are returned.

If someone spams they forfeit the money and it is used to help defray the costs 
of attending NANOG for the 99%. 

If the poster has been sponsored by a current member, said member is flogged in 
public at the next meeting. 

...runs

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:42 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net> wrote:

> I'm sorry Panashe is upset by this rule.  Interestingly, "Your search - 
> Panashe Flack nanog - did not match any documents."  So my guess is that a 
> post from that account has not happened before, meaning the post was 
> moderated yet still made it through.
> 
> Has anyone done a data mining experiment to see how many posts a month are 
> from "new" members?  My guess is it is a trivial percentage.
> 
> -- 
> TTFN,
> patrick
> 
> 
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 13:35 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:04:36 +0200, Panashe Flack said:
>>> list for continued activity. And just for reference - have you guys
>>> SEEN the "Linux Kernel Mailing List"? - it gets frequent spam posts
>>> and yet is perfectly able to ignore the spam/irrelevant posts and
>>> continue on its remit.
>> 
>> For those who don't drink from the Linux-Kernel firehose, it averages
>> 1 or 2 spams per day - and anywhere from 500 to 700 postings a day.
>> 
>> As Linus Torvalds said, back when it was averaging 200 a day:
>> 
>> "Note that nobody reads every post in linux-kernel.   In fact, nobody who
>> expects to have time left over to actually do any real kernel work will
>> read even half.  Except Alan Cox, but he's actually not human, but about
>> a thousand gnomes working in under-ground caves in Swansea.  None of the
>> individual gnomes read all the postings either,  they just work together
>> really well."
>> 
>> The list managers do an incredible job of stopping spam - but even if
>> 50 or 75 a day got through, they'd just be lost in the noise.   You're 
>> skipping
>> several hundred messages a day, skipping a few more isn't any different.
>> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to