On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:25:32AM +0100, Doofus wrote: > Matthew R. Dempsky wrote: > > >On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:28:59AM +0100, Doofus wrote: > > > > > >>I'll never accept this reasoning. To my mind it takes openness to a > >>level that just causes unnecessary grief for many legitimate users. > >> > >> > > > >What unnecessary grief? > > > >Take a look through the debian-user archive for March 2006. Count how > >many spam messages actually hit the list. > > > > > > Yes, I did that with Pacsal's help (see below), and take your point. The > absolute numbers of unblocked spams makes it difficult for anyone to > whine about it too much. No spam at all would be even better though, and > I still haven't read a reasoned case for leaving the list open for > posting to The World, subscribed or not.
Well there were over 800 messages that came through from non-subscribers. Making people subscribe is a barrier to entry, and we want to make it as easy as possible for people to contribute. We have a list which is subscriber only ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). There are a number of people who when they receive the message telling them they must be a subscriber to post, simply move on to something else. My experience in other places is similar. People think it's not really worth the effort and move on. > I take your point here too; none of these disussions have much to do > with debian. I just needed some honest and accurate figures really. > Maybe an automated monthly post summarising the number of posts received > / number of spams blocked / number of spams passed through would serve > to squash threads like this before they begin. If I had a way to automatically count the number of spam messages that had made it through the list, I wouldn't be using that tool to do stats but to actually do the filtering. Cheers, Pasc (with his listmaster hat on) -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
