1996-09-25 - Re: Banning annoying users

Header Data

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

Raw message

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





Thread