Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:05:35 -0400 From: Chris Johnson <dcj-dated-1030485342.imiehjki@palomine.net> To: Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg <listsub@401.cx> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only Message-ID: <20020827220535.GA65374@palomine.net> In-Reply-To: <3D6BDB16.2020304@401.cx> References: <200208271049.g7RAnrl5019226@grimreaper.grondar.org> <3D6BDB16.2020304@401.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:03:34PM +0200, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: > I have read a lot of replys to this mail, with arguments for and > against a subscriber-only list, and so far I have not seen the > against side come up with one single valid argument. Here's one: whenever I post a message on a public list, I use an expiring address. The address in the From header of this message will work for five days; after that, any mail sent to it will bounce. Every message I post has a different address, depending on when I post it. This allows me to post freely in public places with a real address that people can respond to (for a while) without the risk of being abused by harvesters. This may not be to some people's liking, but the qmail list requires every message sent to it to be confirmed by the sender. This has completely eliminated spam from the list with only a small inconvenience to the users of the list. It avoids the problem of people who post with multiple addresses being unable to post that a subscriber-only list has, and some of the regular list members have automated the job of responding to the confirmation messages so that there's no inconvenience at all. Chris Johnson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020827220535.GA65374>