RE: your mail

[Ed Vance]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 12:38 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> [snip]
> A somewhat better anti-spam filter method, than what we use presently
> is to use strictly CLOSED list -- e.g. must be a member to post.
> I have seen what kind of pains closed lists are, I even moderate
> couple small ones.
> 
> However we are deliberately running "open for posting, subject to
> filters" policy, which lets questions and reports to come from
> non-subscribers.
> 

Perhaps there is a middle ground. Leave the list open, but require a
confirmation reply prior to passing along posts from addresses that:

1. are not members of the list, AND
2. have not previously done a proper confirmation reply.

The unconfirmed posts would time out and disappear after a decent interval,
to prevent constipation.

So, anybody could still post, the members would not be inconvenienced, and
non-members would be inconvenienced only on their first post from each
address they post from. This would preserve the "real time" nature of the
list, while gaining the assurance that all who post are life-forms, even if
they live in front of a keyboard and have no real life.  ;-)

Of course, this would require storage for the list of confirmed addresses
and pending unconfirmed posts, and the bandwidth and other overhead of the
infrequent confirmation messages.

Just a thought. 

Cheers,
Ed

---------------------------------------------------------------- 
Ed Vance              edv (at) macrolink (dot) com
Macrolink, Inc.       1500 N. Kellogg Dr  Anaheim, CA  92807
----------------------------------------------------------------