[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] Cross-posting

The problem is that such broad-brush rule-sets target too many innocents. It
is the equivalent of the harsh quarantine rules of the middle-ages. Many
innocents got burned along with the town. I think that we could do better
than this.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Javier
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 11:13 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: Andrew McLaughlin
> Subject: Re: [ga] Cross-posting
> Definitely the best defense of spamming I have seen in a long time.
> But some of us think that, as part of our consensus building process, we
> need to keep spammers out by not allowing cross-posting.
> Javier
> At 10:44 8/10/99 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > > I would like to remind you that the GA and other DNSO lists
> have strict
> > > anti cross-posting rules that are enforced to avoid spamming.
> These are
> > > clearly published in the ww.dnso.org website.
> >
> >The GA has not, to my knowledge, adopted such a rule.
> >
> >Nor is it within the power of the Names Council to dictate or impose such
> >a rule.
> >
> >Nor is it an appropriate rule.  Indeed we have a current example of the
> >folly of such a rule as demonstrated in an ongoing discussion that is of
> >mutually interest to both the NC and the GA.
> >
> >If the GA imposes such a rule, I will suggest to the GA that we establish
> >a distinct mailing list for our own purposes free of manipulation by the
> >names council.
> >
> >The names council is, of course, free to establish its own policies,
> >which, if it involves filtering cross postings, is reminiscent of the
> >three monkeys - one with its hands over its ears, one with its hands over
> >its eyes, and one with its hands over its mouth.  In other words,
> >self-imposed isolation and thus increased irrelevancy.
> >
> >                 --karl--
> >