[Coco] A return to bit.listserv.coco?

[Boisy G. Pitre]

On Mar 21, 2005, at 11:33 AM, James Dessart wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, John R. Hogerhuis wrote:
>
>> Why did that group get spam flooded but this (as its successor) did
>> not? I understood that it was due to a particular malicious
>> individual, so it could have happened to this group too.
>
> However, in order to support the newsgroup connection in the old list, 
> the
> list had to accept posts from non-subscribers. This list only accepts
> posts from subscribers. Frankly, I see no benefit to using the 
> newsgroup.
> If someone isn't willing to sign up to the mailing, either because of
> privacy issues or some other "value" based reason, then maybe the 
> material
> they have to contribute isn't of much value in and of itself.

That's not necessarily true.  I see it more as an issue of convenience 
in access.  Currently, we need to "sign up" on the list to contribute, 
making it effectively a closed list.  I understand the reasons for this 
earlier, when SPAM was an issue.  If SPAM is still an issue, then by 
all means, let's keep it like this.  However, from my observations, the 
excessive crap that was posted to bit.listserv.coco has pretty much 
dissappeared.

> Anonymity is not a right, and when we're talking about a small 
> community
> where one undesirable can create a lot of havoc, it isn't even useful 
> or
> desirable.

This list wasn't immune to such abuse in the past.  Remember the "Bill 
Barden" comeback that happened some time back?  Turned out to be a 
phony, and even more so affected me because it came through my server.  
So abuse can and will happen if someone is hell-bent on it.

It's not so much about protecting anonymity as it is making the 
discussion more open and accessible to all.

Boisy