[MUD-Dev] Re: [Fwd: MUD-Dev]
Jon A. Lambert
jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Tue Apr 7 14:32:04 New Zealand Standard Time 1998
> From: Travis S. Casey <efindel at io.com>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 1998 coder at ibm.net wrote:
> [suggestions for dividing up the list deleted]
> Well, in my admittedly limited experience, mailing lists don't tend to
> have the problems with spam and low signal-noise ratios that newsgroups
> do. Part of this is because of the differences in the kinds of people
> that newsgroups and mailing lists attract (mailing lists often attract
> those who don't want to put up with the spam and noise on newsgroups) and
> part is because it's easier to forcibly remove someone from a mailing
> If we want to open the list to the public, I'd suggest not using any kind
> of two list or two-level model. Instead, use the normal devices used to
> keep undesirables off of mailing lists:
> - Make it a closed list in the sense that only subscribers to the list
> can post to it. That cuts out any spam bots which see the list
> somewhere, and any spammers who aren't smart enough/bold enough to
> subscribe to the mailing list.
> - When someone subscribes to the list, send mail to the address being
> subscribed asking for confirmation. This prevents people from
> subscribing others to the list (either accidentally or intentionally)
> and prevents spammers from subscribing with fake addresses.
I think that JC's manual verification has served the list quite well.
As long as he is willing to keep doing it, more power to him.
I dare say, as soon as the list goes public, he will have a rash of
Or were you planning on keeping the invitation policy in place, JC?
> Of course, this won't prevent all possible attacks on the list, but it
> will prevent the vast majority of them.
> The biggest problem I've seen on open lists (and on newsgroups, for that
> matter) is that the same topics tend to get rehashed over and over --
> people join who don't know that it was discussed to death two months ago.
> We've already had that problem to some extent, and I think we can handle
> it the way we do now: via the FAQ, archives, and simply politely letting
> people know "we discussed that already -- why don't you check out the
> summary at <wherever> and then we can start talking about it again if
> you've got something new to discuss about it."
Many times when I start to post, then I get a overpowering feeling of Deja
don't. Sometimes I feel like I've repeated myself too many times on the
and I see that to some extent in others' posts. Yet it's helpful to new
while it may cause many to yawn.
Hopefully with the archives easily accessible to all, these requests can be
easily met. But then I would hope traffic doesn't boil down to requests to
BTW, JC Will the archives be searchable by keyword? :)
More information about the MUD-Dev