>>>> "Mats" == Mats Lidell
>>>> Malcolm wrote:
Malcolm> M-x report-xemacs-bug
Malcolm> Malcolm - At least that's my guess.
Mats> OK that is fair enough but doesn't explain why the other
Mats> XEmacs lists allows for anonymous postings.
(1) gmane. Some of our most valuable users use gmane, rather than
subscribe. Others use the archives. (A typical example of the kind
of thing we have to worry about that individual users don't.)
(2) I just disposed of 180 spams to xemacs-announce which only accepts
posts from a _very_ short list of addresses. Unfortunately until we
get somebody with the time to work on it, we don't have an up to the
minute Mailman installation, so we have no way to reject spams except
Mats> And if only bug reports were allowed to be anonymous I guess
Mats> there could be some easy filtering that would remove some
Mats> 99% of the spam.
That's about what we were getting until the recent spate of spams that
spamassassin doesn't catch. We cannot try to hide our addresses.
That means that every dung beetle and stink bug that crawls the web
will pick up our addresses. We get a _lot_ of spam.
The obvious temporary solution is to use challenge-and-whitelist.
Whether that will work very long depends on whether there are spammers
unscrupulous enough to specifically target lists. If there are, they
will soon enough start distributing addresses as to/from pairs, which
will get them auto-approved by challenge-and-whitelist systems. The
problem, once again, is a lack of manpower to upgrade the Mailman
installed at our host.
(Note that this is another typical example of a strategy that is
basically unbreakable for individual users, but can easily be worked
around for a list.)
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.