RE: [ga] NC members, censorship and other absurd things

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	If a moderator processed mail only once a day, so that messages were sent
to the filtered list in a batch once every 24 hours, that would be
inconvenient for list readers, and would slow down discussion.  (Further,
as has been pointed out, any such reponsibility would be a tremendous
headache for the moderator.)  BUT a series of attacks on the ga list like
the one we just saw might damage the ga's discussion process substantially
more than that.  I think it's too soon to impose moderation; it seems to me
that step one is just to enact acceptable use rules and to explore
automated means of blocking mail-bomb attacks.  But I can imagine
circumstances in which moderation, along the lines Michael Froomkin laid
out, would be the least of the available evils.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com


At 08:39 AM 11/12/99 +0100, R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>Kent & Roeland wrote:
>
>> >
>> > The real problem with moderated lists is not so much the time it
>> > takes, but the delay it can impose.
>> 
>> Which reenforces my claim that it doesn't scale well. Why 
>> would it impose a
>> delay if it were scalable?
>> 
>
>I don't know about scalability, but may I notice that this list has
>contributors from different time zones, which makes the
>monitoring/moderation an H24 task, even if it requires only few minutes of
>work per hour of traffic.
>I think this will lead to a performance that will be unacceptable for some
>of us (in particular the ones that are in the wrong time zone - i.e. that
>are active when the moderatior is sleeping).
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>