On May 25, 6:26 pm, ········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> As little legitimate traffic as this group gets, couldn't it be
> moderated to screen out the spam?
no.
Cheers,
drewc
········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> As little legitimate traffic as this group gets, couldn't it be
> moderated to screen out the spam?
Most professionals in this newsgroup do not see the spam at all. At least,
this is the case for me, because I use the news server of my university
computing center.
The quality of a newsfeed depends very much on the ISP, see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USENET>. I do not know exactly how my ISP
filters the spam out of comp.lang.lisp, but I think it is probably done by
users marking messages as spam. Some ISPs do not do this filtering at all,
one of the worst being Google Groups. So if you read comp.lang.lisp via
Google Groups you have to filter out all the spam yourself to make it
readable.
So you do not need moderation, but a decent ISP. I remember that someone
mentioned also a reasonable free one here recently.
Nicolas
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
> Most professionals in this newsgroup do not see the spam at all. At least,
> this is the case for me, because I use the news server of my university
> computing center.
Ah, *that* spam. I see only a tiny fraction of that. I thought the OP
was thinking of the current noise from Seamus Expansion!
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
>
>> Most professionals in this newsgroup do not see the spam at all. At least,
>> this is the case for me, because I use the news server of my university
>> computing center.
>
> Ah, *that* spam. I see only a tiny fraction of that. I thought the OP
> was thinking of the current noise from Seamus Expansion!
My name is Seamus MacRae and I am not a spammer.
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 18:26 -0700, ·······@gmail.com wrote:
> As little legitimate traffic as this group gets, couldn't it be
> moderated to screen out the spam?
Try http://news.motzarella.org/
On 2009-05-26 10:06:38 -0400, Lars Rune N�stdal <···········@gmail.com> said:
> Try http://news.motzarella.org/
I'm trying it right now - ignore this as it's just a test post.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> As little legitimate traffic as this group gets, couldn't it be
> moderated to screen out the spam?
I see you're posting from Google Groups. It should be emphasized to
you that most of us are not, and that this newsgroup existed long
before Google joined the Usenet world. Therefore, applying moderation
to it would be extraordinarily difficult: It would require a large
number of people who run their own Usenet servers to recognize that it
is now moderated and who, precisely, is moderating it now.
A lot of people are opposed to moderation of any kind on philosphical
grounds, so you would lose them. Others, like me, merely think
moderating comp.lang.lisp would be pointless given how usable it
remains in the face of the current spam barrage (which I only see very
little of, apparently, because I'm posting via news.motzarella.org).
In summary: No, moderation is not needed here, and it would be
unreasonably difficult to implement at this date even if it were.
Chris Barts <··············@gmail.com> writes:
>In summary: No, moderation is not needed here, and it would be
>unreasonably difficult to implement at this date even if it were.
Besides, it's easy to mark a posting as "approved by the moderator".
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Casper H.S. Dik <··········@Sun.COM> writes:
> Chris Barts <··············@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>In summary: No, moderation is not needed here, and it would be
>>unreasonably difficult to implement at this date even if it were.
>
> Besides, it's easy to mark a posting as "approved by the moderator".
>
> Casper
This doesn't work if the server you're posting to is well-configured,
as I understand it, because all posts to a moderated group are emailed
to the address of (who the server thinks) is the group's moderator. It
would be trivial for the moderation software to dump any
'pre-approved' messages.
(In addition, news.motzarella.org dumps *all* 'pre-approved' messages,
which makes it impossible to post to alt.sysadmin.recovery.)