Re: [h-e-w] spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only

[David Vanderschel]

On Tuesday, December 30, "Michael R. Wolf" <address@hidden> wrote:
>David Vanderschel <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Monday, December 29, "Michael R. Wolf"
>> <address@hidden> wrote a rant the main point of
>> which would seem to be:
>>>Adding more impedance in this way would certainly cut me off
>>>even more when I need help the most.

>> I hope others have not missed the fact mentioned in my
>> message with subject "members only" that the list is
>> no longer being moderated, a fact which seems to me to
>> render Michael's rant moot (even though his subject
>> would seem to indicate that he had seen that message).

>I understood that message to mean that this list had
>rapidly moved from being an unmoderated open list, to
>a moderated list, to a closed list. Am I mistaken?

Yes.  Though what I wrote is unambiguous with respect
to Michael's issue, when I wrote that I had configured
the list "to restrict posting to subscribers only"
"without moderation", I was oversimplifying a bit.  It
is still an unmoderated list for subscribers; and
anyone can subscribe.  However, a post from an account
which is not subscribed _is_ moderated unless the
account is on a list of non-subscribers whose posts
are to be accepted anyway.  (You know, guys like
Stallman.)

Michael was posting from an address at which he is not
subscribed, so I did have to moderate his post.
However, I have added that address to the list of
those which can post without moderation, so the delay
which concerns him will occur no more.

Meanwhile, _I_ still have to see the spam.  :(
(It is fairly easy to reject by email.  I can also
configure accounts which are to be unilaterally
rejected.) 

>Perhaps I could rephrase my concern - could you humor me by redefining
>"rant" to

>    Requiring
>    Authorization
>    Negates
>    The accessability of the list to those who need help

>I'd have used "diminishes", but it doesn't start with "N"....:-)

Yes, that seems to sum up Michael's position well
enough.  (I would have been apologizing for the "T".  ;-)

>I don't yet see my point as moot. Perhaps you could
>help me. Is it trivially easy for an outsider to post
>(or gain membership), and thus gain access to the
>core benefit of the list?

Yes.  To subscribe, anyone can just go here: 

    http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-emacs-windows

(As I pointed out in a previous message, you can
configure your subscription to disable email.)

Non-subscribers can still post; but moderation delay
will occur if the poster is not on the list of
otherwise-authorized posters.  As with Michael, I will
add otherwise-authorized posters as I encounter them.
(Not only does this expedite matters for everyone, but
it also saves work for me if they keep posting.)

>A list with no newcomers will certainly be of limited use, ...

Indeed.  I am surprised that Michael would presume
that anyone would allow such a dismal state of affairs
to exist.  I regard his argument as a reductio ad
absurdum which might better have alerted him to the
fact that he had made an erroneous assumption or
inference somewhere along the line.

Regards,
  David V.