From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 12 06:39:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BC58D4 for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 06:39:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@sohara.org) Received: from uk1rly2283.eechost.net (relay01a.mail.uk1.eechost.net [217.69.40.75]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3B9D91 for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 06:39:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [31.186.37.179] (helo=smtp.marelmo.com) by uk1rly2283.eechost.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UbPwF-0003WT-7H; Sun, 12 May 2013 07:39:19 +0100 Received: from [192.168.63.1] (helo=steve.marelmo.com) by smtp.marelmo.com with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UbPwS-0002Pc-6W; Sun, 12 May 2013 06:39:32 +0000 Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 07:39:31 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith To: "Julian H. Stacey" Subject: Re: List Spam Filtering Message-Id: <20130512073931.c85d1a0b1639a79efc489df1@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <201305111744.r4BHik5Y069562@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <20130511170944.20e6037204c186923a385d7e@sohara.org> <201305111744.r4BHik5Y069562@fire.js.berklix.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth-Info: 15567@permanet.ie (plain) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 06:39:36 -0000 On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:44:46 +0200 "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > Hi, > "Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote: > > On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:26:26 +0200 > > "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > > > > > If list write access was changed to Subscribers Only: > > > - List could silently discard such spam. > > > - Postmaster@ (& webmaster@ weeding web archives) would have less > > > work. > > > - Less individual need to select spam phrases to copy to personal > > > filters (& less time searching WTF dialect American above meant in > > > English ;-). > > > > The downside is that it would require people to subscribe in > > order to ask a question, > > True. I suggest the up side outweighs the down side though. From the point of view of subscribers perhaps, however from the point of view of users who don't wish to subscribe in order to ask a single question it is the other way round. > > this is also the reason for the convention of using > > "Reply to all" in FreeBSD mailing lists. It's been a convention for a > > *long* time, at least since FreeBSD 1.1 was shiny and new in 1993. > > I'm not intending to question or suggest any change re CC behaviour. > (Maybe you mis-read or mis-infered what I intended, Not at all, just pointing out that the two things have a common reason in the FreeBSD lists. Personally I doubt that either will change any time soon. > or maybe I mis-wrote, or mis-implied, whatever, please forget that bit, > though as background I'd observe: > Questions@ didn't exist for quite a while after FreeBSD started, > Hackers@ & some others preceded it. A good many others indeed - but all the "user" lists have always had the same conventions. > Various people prune CC when they get littered with too many CC. ) True enough - and occasionally this loses the unsubscribed OP. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/