From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Reiserfs, highquality meds source, low rates Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:45:09 -0700 Message-ID: <40854585.8040003@namesys.com> References: <000001c425b0$1750e0b8$4fa9aa0e@fluridden.com> <200404191339.08313.tdickenson@geminidataloggers.com> <20040419134032.GD57@alias.nmd.msu.ru> <200404201054.22865.Michael.James@csiro.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <200404201054.22865.Michael.James@csiro.au> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Michael.James@csiro.au Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Alexander Lyamin Michael James wrote: >On Monday 19 April 2004 23:40, Alexander Lyamin wrote: > > >>>i am just not sure how to kill THIS messages which look so.... >>>they dont look like spam, even to me upon first look. >>> >>> >>> >> You need more software.... >> >> > >While Hans doesn't want to block posts by non-subscribers, > could a non-subscriber return address be verified > in the same way as a new subscription is? > >ie: If a non-subscriber posts; they get back a letter, > "We recieved this posting to the Reiserfs List, > if you want it to appear, just hit reply." > >From the list software's point of view > they are actually subscribing, but with delivery supressed. > >Mailman can cope with a subscriber suspending delivery, (for holidays etc) > it would be a case of jiggering the subscription to happen transparently. > >Just another slightly different hoop to trip up the spammers. >michaelj > >PS: Thanks for you existing labours on this list, it's appreciated. > > > I think that requiring a confirmation response by non-subscribers is acceptable, given the serious nuisance spam has become in the last 2 years.