[Volunteers] "As an anti-spam measure"?

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Jul 18 11:28:52 PDT 2005


Quoting William R Ward (bill at svlug.org):

> Yes, that's the reasoning - the theory being their scripts aren't
> typically smart enough to go to the trouble.

OK, since you say that was the reasoning, I do believe you.  The reason
I sounded so very incredulous is that, obviously, the cited policy _cannot_
work, since essentially everyone who posts here also posts to svlug at .


[Moving non-policy text off the list policy page:]

> Once a SVLUG Wiki has been set up, and a FAQ page in it established,
> then the not-so-policy-related items can be moved there.  Until such a
> FAQ exists, they need to be *somewhere.*

Pending that, I would suggest that the existing page include a clear
separation/distinction between "policy" items (requirements upon
subscribers) and other stuff.  Currently, it's a stew.

If we're going to go around having a bunch of funky rules, the least we
can do is be clear about where those end and the motley collection of
suggestions and tips begins.

That, and the failure to either document or annul prior presidents'
additions to list policy, even though those were supposedly serious
enough to carry some rather explicit and dire threats, are the core 
of what I've long seen as wrong with that page.

And, Paul:  The reason we don't need a "rule" that says the president
and vice-president reserve the right to eject anyone from the mailing
lists for any reason is that it's (obviously) true by default.  That's
implied by your being in charge of the group, and the group owning the
mailing lists.

The things one needs to document are any provisions that are (1)
significant and (2) non-obvious.  Again, similarly, we don't have a
"rule" saying that spam is unwelcome, either.  Why?  Because it's
obvious.  It's _equally_ obvious that the group runs the lists, and the
president and VP run the group.  So, you don't need a "rule" to say so.


> >I'll now add: Suggestion 5:  Make svlug@ & volunteers@ rosters
> >visible to their subscribers.
> 
> I don't like this idea, because I think lurkers who want to read a
> mailing list should be able to do so without introducing *any* risk of
> their email addresses being harvested by spammers.  Of course, if they
> are visible to the world it's trivial to harvest the addresses.  But
> as you mentioned above, it's possible (though I think unlikely) that
> the spammers could join just to get the subscriber list.

You may be unaware:  Any new subscriber explicitly elects to have
his/her subscription either "private" (i.e., not disclosed in the list
roster) or not, at the time of subscription.  Ergo, lurkers can still
conceal themselves.

That is:  People joining Mailman lists (whose rosters are set either as
available to subscribers or to the public at large) via the Web form are
_prompted_ to choose yes or no for that question, during the signup
process.

After subscribing, the subscriber can revisit the setting via this option
on his/her per-subscriber options page:

  Conceal yourself from subscriber list?

  When someone views the list membership, your email address is normally
  shown (in an obscured fashion to thwart spam harvesters). If you do not
  want your email address to show up on this membership roster at all,
  select Yes for this option. 


> **I** decided??!?!?!  Where did you get that idea?  That wasn't my
> decision.  I'm just going along with what my President has stated as
> policy.

OK, sorry about that.  I spoke on the basis of what I saw.






More information about the volunteers mailing list