analyses

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at nospam.dot
Sun Jan 11 13:50:51 PST 2004


On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Matthew Burgess wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:47:35 -0500
> Billy O'Connor <billyoc at gnuyork.org> wrote:
>
> > Jeroen Coumans <jeroen at JeroenCoumans.nl> writes:
> >
> > > policy. For the same reasons I think it would be better if the
> > > mailinglists become subscribe-only.
> >
> > Far more noise is generated talking about spam than the spammers
> > could ever dream of.

Uhhh, surely you jest! But I could agree that we haven't seen that much
spam on these lists *yet*. But it has certainly increased in the last
few months.

Some hope lies in the fact that the single largest generator in the
world, making millions each month for his efforts, has recently been the
subject of legal action. If and how long that may take to provide any
relief is yet to be seen.

> >
> > We rely on bug reports from all comers
>
> Point them to bugzilla then from the website, FAQ or the book
> itself (or a combination thereof as deemed necessary).  Bugzilla should
> be *the* tool for tracking/monitoring bugs.  As was pointed out by Bill
> earlier on, some bug reports/request for comments have been lost in the
> black-hole that the mailing-lists can turn into.

I agree (if the policy is that bugs should appear in Bugzilla *before*
requesting help/change on the lists) that bug reports could/should go
straight to Bugzilla. I don't think that affects making the lists
subscriber-only either way.

For myself, I sub to several of the lists (6 or 7?) and haven't seen
enough spam to make me think subscribe-only is warranted yet. That could
change, but I think it should be considered with at potentially two
pieces of empirical evidence in hand.

1) An actual count of spam occurrences, by list and in the aggregate,
   and as a percentage of traffic for those to categories;
2) A "poll" of our user-community (*not* just team members) that
   indicates a *strong* preference/acceptance of a subscriber-only
   posting policy to address this problem.

The first item gives some solid basis for someone to suggest that
considering the second is really justified. If we get only 10-20 per
month, in aggregate, I would *guess* that the majority of the community
would not find that reason enough to consider step 2. It would be a
major loss of convenience for them for little perceived gain, I think.

Someone would need to do monitoring and data collection for some period,
certainly a thankless and unrewarding job, and so I doubt it will ever be
done.

Item 2 could be done if item one indicates a very high number or if the
number of individuals in the community who are complaining reaches a
crescendo. Subjective evaluation would do for this I guess.

Without at least one of these two situations, I wouldn't give any
serious consideration to changing policies for this reason.

There are other reasons that might justify subscriber-only posting, but
those are not at issue here.

>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt.
>

-- 
NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Bill Maltby
lfsbillATearthlinkDOTnet
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.



More information about the lfs-support mailing list