RE: your mail

[William Scott Lockwood III]

That is the best suggestion I've yet seen.  It's an excellent idea!

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Ed Vance wrote:

> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>