On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
On 2/17/02 7:48 PM, "Larry McVoy" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Second, the point is that even if mailman is 100% perfect, it's not at all clear that that would result in even 1% less spam hitting home. If that's even remotely close, then it seems like efforts could be better spent on screening technology.
You can't assume your admins are going to want/have screening technology, unless you build it into mailman. And I don't think Mailman can simply say "hey, that's some other program's problem". We need to find ways to not become an easy source for the harvester machines. I DO know from my sites that addresses published ONLY as mailman admins get harvested and hit by spam.
But at the same time -- I don't blame him. And Mailman has a responsibility to do something about that, the way we (as admins) have a responsibility ot our users not to make them easy fodder for the harvesters by publishing archives in an easy to harvest format...
I would just like to put in one thought... I like the whole small is beautiful philosophy. Maybe as you add more features, we can add some of these things as distict modules? I still feel the pipe is one of the best things *NIX has going for it. I worry about feature creap for a number of reasons. Just a thought.