[PLUG] in the mean time

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
> How many people actually use the news gateway? I bet almost nobody. It
> is useful to have diverse list access methods if they are used but
> most people just prefer either the regular list or the digest.

It doesn't matter how many people use it.

The real matter is whether or not (or how) we can prevent spam from coming
to the list, agreed?

So how about we get let Karl (or his delegate) get spamassassin running
and we can keep the news gateway.  I think we can all stand a spam or two
a day until we clear it up.  Hell, I'm sure each of us ignores that many
of the messages that are SUPPOSED to make it to the list each day.  (I,
for one, pretty much hit 'd' as soon as I see a line that begins "rpm -".)

> > I think it's best to leave the configuration open and let users modify
> > their own configuration as they choose.
> 
> Why have the list open? What purpose does it serve? If you have a
> compelling reason then I am willing to listen.

Let's define some terms (since we've lost a bit in quotes out of context).  
By "leave the configuration open", I meant leaving the list configured
such that member addresses are available to other members by individual
member's choice.

What you're advocating is removing that choice and making all member
addresses unavailable.

Can you really not imagine a situation where a person would WANT their
subscribed address available to other subscribers?

> Most people, I think, assume that the list is closed by default.

Neil, you make the claim that "most people" think like you far too often
for it to hold any credibility whatsoever.

I don't mean this to be a personal attack or the start of a flame-fest,
but I find it odd that you're all for personal choice and freedom until
it's inconvenient (and then you're all for dictatorship, albeit sometimes
dictatorship of the majority).

Simply stating that you believe most people think this or that doesn't
mean anything.  Hopefully you can make your case without appealling to
false authority.

> I assumed that when I subsribed. I personally admin a majordomo list
> (for another organization) and have the list closed and I think the
> users appreciate that. Frankly, I was surprised to learn that the list
> was not closed.

OK, so you were surprised.  Then, I assume, you went and removed your
address from the publicly available list.  So what's the problem?

If we make a global change, then NOBODY will have the option of making
their subscribed address public.  That would be a case of you imposing
your will and expectations on others.  So even if don't buy the argument
that some people might actually want to make their address available, you
should at least be able to see that your request is in conflict with your
own professed ideology.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org