From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
To: DMiskell@envirolink.org
Message Hash: 3cfc1109a88a73b4242db05f8376545c0db225f53f185b60a3f82e7ae673ac7a
Message ID: <199609241609.RAA00235@server.test.net>
Reply To: <199609241158.HAA27269@envirolink.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-25 08:40:39 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 16:40:39 +0800
From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 16:40:39 +0800
To: DMiskell@envirolink.org
Subject: Re: Banning annoying users
In-Reply-To: <199609241158.HAA27269@envirolink.org>
Message-ID: <199609241609.RAA00235@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> The not allowing unsubscribed individuals to post is logical, for a
> time.
This isn't practical for the reason that many people who read and post
to the list are not subscribed to the list. (There are many gateways,
local mail->news gateways, etc. eg point your nntp aware news
reader at nntp.hks.net.)
Either delete the junk, or subscribe to a filtered list if deleting or
not reading posts bothers you enough that you think it worth the risk
that the filter owner filters a few posts that you would have found
interesting.
(killfiling on address is not possible for remailer, and content of
unattributed unsigned anonymous posts is difficult to automatically
filter).
Adam
Return to September 1996
Return to “Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>”