Sellam Ismail wrote: I wouldn't exactly call the sender a rocket scientist, what with begging for a easy felony conviction, but you're right, that's irrelevant. You know, if it was for real, I really would be upset by it. The nerve of some grafting bureaucrat or despotic politician who probably sucked the life's blood out of their fellow countrymen whining about being deprived of their ill-gotten booty. I'd direct them to the nearest firing squad, not help them get their millions back. I'm just telling you like it is. It's called outreach. There is gear in the hands of people who, say, come across the archives from links, who will have no interest whatsoever in subscribing, and we need to keep it as easy as possible for them to post, or stuff will get junked that shouldn't. I don't think you really mean that. I think you mean you want to stop spam on the list. Fine. Do that. Careful with the collateral damage is all I'm saying. Not going anywhere anytime soon that I know of. I just meant that the list would no longer be worthwhile for me in that case, too. jbdigriz

Sellam Ismail wrote: Or so is purported. Even if so, official collusion will evaporate instantaneously if credible evidence of wire fraud is presented by and to the right parties. Nobody wants to lose their cushy IMF sinecures. Again, it's of little relevance to the spam issue. (...) Heh, you think or one or two spams every couple of weeks is bad, you should see some of the other lists I'm on. Yahoo groups even provide their own spam, in HTML yet. Jay runs a pretty tight ship on a high-volume list, and without throwing his weight around, either. I'd say he's doing a fine job, and I don't know anyone else who'd have the required time or patience to put into it. jbdigriz

At 12:54 PM 3/15/2002 +0000, Sellam Ismail wrote: As I recall, this scam accounts for a significant portion of their GNP. - John

On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, James B. DiGriz wrote: I have to agree with Sellam. From the looks of last month's thread concerning ***monitoring***, NOT ***limiting***, posting access, there seemed to be more favorable responses than negative to some kind of "gate" for non-subscribed posters. There was no shortage of volunteers to implement whatever system we decide on, and/or do the actual monitoring. As far as Jay's performance running the list, I'd like to make two observations - Unrestricted SPAM has been a very live topic for six weeks. I would normally expect the List Operator to at least comment on feasibility of the various proposals, and on the steps involved for the proposed volunteers. I didn't see anything at all. Today is March 15, 2002. The latest post available from the online archives is dated November 30, 2001. That's a hell of a lag. Doc

Please read the entire message below from the list admin (who is trying very hard not to come out of his skin and choke someone)... You wrote... suggest What color is the sky in your world? it. Thanks, your sentiments are much appreciated. But shouldn't that last phrase be "to put up with it" rather than "to put into it"? ;) As a side comment - It's rather amusing that some people have told me I do too much, others are now telling me I do too little. Hummm Yes it has been a live topic. If you will recall, *I* am the one that started the conversation about it with a request for comments. Didn't see anything? Ummm maybe you should go back and find the two possible solutions that I posted. I also did at least one followup comment I believe. I'm so sorry my timetable for making a decision about this hasn't met with your approval. You said "on the steps involved for the proposed volunteers"? You OBVIOUSLY have missed some of the things I posted on this topic earlier - I didn't list steps for the "proposed volunteers" because volunteers are not in my game plan at this time. More on this below... and in a separate post.... Really. Wow, that's funny, because I read the mail on this list every night. I may occasionally go a day or two without it, but that's not very common. Moreover, I, (probably like most on the list), routinely skip and delete (without reading) posts that don't appear to be about anything that interests me, with regards to my own collection or to list issues. Perhaps a thread or two has gone by that had a subject line that didn't cause me to read it when in fact it contained discussion that I should have watched. I must say I am very offended by the suggestion that I only poke my head in here once or twice a month and don't know whats going on. For example - take a look at the subject of this thread "Big African Grifters". Hummm ya think maybe that might be something I wouldn't care to read? Why did I finally see this convo? Because someone had the forsight to put "list management" at the front of the subject. I submit that most people skim the list the same way I do, watching the subject lines for something interesting. Hummm perhaps I need to turn into a list-nazi and delete posts which don't contain content appropriate for the heading? (thats sarcasm, not something I would do) As far as a solution to the SPAM issue, I read all the reponses on the list for a few weeks till it seemed to die down (maybe it continued under a subject heading that didn't catch my eye). For those who think I have not pursued the issue, my apologies for not CC'ing you on the many and varied private discussions I have been having with several list members on what to do about this exact topic (I HOPE you see blistering sarcasm coming through here). Mostly, I believe the SPAM issue is much ado about nothing. Many people on the list have posted AND sent me private email saying "It's your list, you make the rules, do what you want". While that may be true, I have always tried very hard to solicit input from listmembers anyway. Several of the loudest complainers failed to realize that the spam was rarely coming to having someone moderate the list: I have stated very clearly my somewhat strong opposition to putting this list into moderated mode. That goes for ME moderating it, or for delegating it to someone else. I also stated that if moderating it becomes the only real solution, *I* would do it (yes, I have the time, believe it or not). That is why I didn't answer the people who offered to moderate the list (because I felt I had already responded to them publicly). As to not answering direct emails about the list? It is true, I do get a lot of email every day, and I don't always choose to repond to every one of them. You can bet that if someone emails me about list maintenance, it is taken care of in a timely fashion. Yes, there have been one or two requests for a change in mailing address that I didn't get to quickly. Sometimes it is hard to keep track of so much email, no matter how much spare time I have these days. However, I think that many of the people who just posted here thanking me for the job I do would beg to differ with you on that point. I have listened to the discussion about SPAM, I have been talking to others on the list privately about it, and I will announce my intended solution as soon as I am damn well ready to commit to something. Yes, I have a proposed solution, it does NOT involve moderating the list, and as soon as I am satisfied that it is the best route to go, I will post it on the list for final discussion in case some people vehemently disagree with it. Jay

Sellam Wrote.... That's funny you should say that now Sellam, because you were the first one to post to me privately during the great "reply-to" debate that "it is your list, take care of it well....", and "you make the rules... do what you wish". I will go dig up your past private email to me that said just that if you would like. You have also posted words similar to that on the list in the past, I noted them well. I find it interesting that you are suddenly changing your tune. Does your past stance on this issue no longer mesh with your adgenda perhaps? You do get some input. I listen. However I also make the final determination. If you don't like it, or feel that I don't get reasonable input from the list members, please feel free to start an alternate list - that appears to be your motivation in any case. Infiltrated with Spammers? See Jerome's recent post on this topic for a reality check Sellam. That statement is what a flamer would call a "target rich environment". I think I'll leave the gauntlet on the ground. Sellam, you're trying to bait me. I'm not falling for it. Live with it. Jay West

I have no problem with you, Jay. I have some problems with off-topicism, but I blame the senders since there are no solutions to try that don't require something like a "moderate-read-everything" kind of effort, which is ridiculous. It does seem that foolish OTicism is down (Thanks everyone) but semi-useless OTicism might be up, so we aren't perfect. John A.

Interesting to me that Sellam shoud say that he doesn't want me to be the one to decide solely how the list is run. There is a rather amusing footnote to that which I really didn't want to share. But.... At the time of the last major political flame war on the list, I received tons of email from many people DEMANDING that I ban Sellam. I refused, on that occasion, for reasons that I am not sure I can now recall. That is the only time I have ever gone against the majority will of the list. So Sellam, you are here only BECAUSE I am the one to decide solely how it is run. Nuff said, lets get back to the list topic please Jay West

Jerome Fine replies: That is what life is all about - you win some, you lose some. (Humour!) Actually, I am pleased you refused to ban Sellam - since I suspect that having him is more of an advantage overall. In fact, a big advantage. In closing, I also vote that Jay has the final decision on how to run the list - since Jay has always shown reasonable judgement in the past. And last, but again probably most, thank you Jay.

At 11:14 AM 3/16/2002 -0600, Jay West wrote: Smell as I mail. I am all smiles. I am small isle. Male, slim sail. A male, ill miss. I am a slim sell. I wouldn't want to see Sellam banned from the ranch. - John

<humor> Why not let Sellam start a new list, where we all would be free to post off topic messages and complain about the latest freakin spam :) </humor>

At 08:30 PM 3/15/02 -0600, Jay West wrote: Perhaps Jay doesn't post as frequently as some, but his S/N ratio is to be admired. I'd say the fact that he isn't an obvious presence looming over the list is testimony to his success at running the show. Spam is to be deplored, but there is a much greater number of off-topic posts generated by individuals of this list than all the spam that has been received. For taking care of that problem, we are all in control and don't need any really restrictive policies. What to do: 1) Don't post off-topic crap. If you have a subject line that begins "OT", don't post. Where you draw the line of on-top vs off-topic is quite open to debate, but there is a large volume of willfully off topic messages, and these, at least, should get the axe. 2) Don't respond to off-topic crap on-list. Send it off list. Here's a great test. If the thought of using the list to respond to an off-topic posting is appealing but responding to just the individual originator of the message isn't, then I'd suggest that maybe you have an ego problem that is being fed by having a semi-captive audience. Yes, quite obvious points, but apparently not practiced. Count me as a happy customer, Jay. Thanks. (and, no, there is no irony here as I consider this subject on-topic) ----- Jim Battle == frustum(a)pacbell.net

Jay West wrote: Jay, count me as one who is quite satisfied with your handling of this listserver! I find the change of subject but not changing the subject line annoying and do pretty much the same thing you do with them. Yup, I do lose some good info, but good is relative; it is not worth my time to parse each message to try and find something of interest. Again, the spam is not a problem; it is the multiple complaints about the spam that helps lowers the S/N ratio (which is already pretty low) of this listserver. But again, this is a subscriber responsibility issue, and I like the way you have been handling it. Another indication that you are doing a good job!!! Keep up the good work!!!

I would just like to point out that there have been between 20 and 30 replies to this, and the topic only came up a few days ago. It would take weeks for that many SPAM posts to come accross here. It seems to me like we're doing a much better job of cluttering the list than the SPAMmers are. -- Owen Robertson

Rumor has it that Doc may have mentioned these words: Not to sound like a prick, but you mightn't have looked all that hard... He emailed the list just prior to 1 Mar 2002 (that's when I received a reply list more open for nonsubscribers... He might have one hell of a job... Lord knows I'm a wee bit behind in my 'hobby-based duties' WRT my listserver & other things. At least it's up & running - methinks we should count our blessings to have a decent uptime, nice, hi-bandwidth list to discuss our ancient friends *for Free*... Jay, I know how thankless this 'free labor' can be, so lemme be the first person to make it a little less thankless: Thank You! :-) And always, if there's anything I can do to help, just holler. I'll do anything I can to help. Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig. If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.

Rumor has it that Dan Wright may have mentioned these words: One small problem with that: If the person's not subscribed to the list, how do they know they're supposed to put an '[OL]' in the subject? [[ That, and then the "new flame wars" - 42 list members flaming some poor soul because he honestly forgot to type [OL] in the subject before he hit "Send"... ]] unless - if the list manager software that Jay uses has the ability to differentiate between on-list & off-list posters, maybe a small configuration change could be made to prepend an '[OL] ' to the subject coming in from any off-list email address automatically? That might work... but to me that would only be a solution if it doesn't cause any extra work for Jay. Most definately. Just my $0.000000002 worth, and it ain't worth that... Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig. If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.

Jerome Fine replies: When the ratio of comments on spam to the actual spam is less than 1:1, then I will start to consider if I should take Sellam's comments seriously. As long as the number of comments on spam is even equal to the number of spam, then it can't be that significant a problem. As is is, the ratio is at least 10:1, so I don't think anyone can be suffering that much. If we all were so concerned, we would just hit the DELETE key and stop making comments. PERIOD. I certainly would not want Sellam to take over - at least Jay takes the attitude that all changes should be made slowly. Plus, I have yet to see just how many e-mails make it to the list from off-list sources. If there ever is any action needed, I would want that to at least be the first step. Just add the four characters [OL] at the start of every message from off the list. That will provide some measure of how often it happens. It would also determine just how many messages some one would need to monitor if a counter was kept. If it is fewer than 10 a week, it would not be much of a job. Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine