Re: [ga] Jeff Williams Spams Again
Sunday, Sunday, January 06, 2002, 6:10:18 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 02:49:54 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>> As stupid as it is, there is really nothing that the GA Chair can, or
>> should, be empowered to do about it.
> That's not a particularly helpful remark. For a start, there's such a thing
> as persuasion even wrt Jeff Williams. If others on the list show their
> condemnation then he might stop or at least tone down his approach.
You obviously have not dealt with Jeff Williams as much as many of us
on the list have. There is no way to shame him into acting any way.
Every possible means of doing that has been tried, it is a futile
> Jeff could have posted to the GA list with a cc to those he thought weren't on
> the list but he was just too lazy to try to work out who was subscribed to GA
> and who wasn't.
>> Who he emails to is not something that is or should be in the GA
>> Chair's area of control.
> That depends. Jeff has, for example, cross posted between [ga] and other
> mailing lists including [ga-abuse]. I consider that prohibition against
> cross-posting to multiple maiing lists is quite a reasonable measure.
That has NEVER been a sanctionable offense here, it has ALWAYS been
one that has been technically implemented by the list operator. To
try and apply it to a single member in a manner in which it has not
been applied to others is prejudicial.
>> Of course, I'm sure other perfectly valid reasons exist for taking
>> action against him, but none of that will stop his use of BCC's of
>> posting members to get around it.
> Sure, but Jeff doesn't like being suspended. Don't forget there are two
> sanctions available under the existing rules.
> - Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the affected
> individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the content
> rules, or rejects them.
> - Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person not to
> be sent to the GA list.
> Until now we have only used the second sanction "suspension". We could always
> try the first "monitoring of posts". And you must know that other lists (for
> example, the TLDA list/s) have restrictions on multiple email addresses.
> But I'm surprised. It's not like you to give up so easily :-)
I stand by my original post, completely.
William X Walsh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html