Hi, folks!
A long time ago we already had discussed about this, but let us try it again ...
It seems as if people looking for help with GPC do not find this mailing list, and even if they do, they might not want to subscribe but would prefer to have a look at us first.
Other people would like to stay up-to-date with information about GPC but are not interesting in our discussions.
So what about following the example of the DJGPP folks and do the following:
* Create a Usenet newsgroup `comp.lang.pascal.gnu'.
* Gate all emails to the GPC mailing list to the newsgroup and vice versa.
* Create an additional, moderated mailing list especially for GPC announcements.
This could be combined with a move of the GPC mailing list to a host which runs a list server software (majordomo) which would simplify subscribing and unsubscribung to the mailing list, allow for an automatic online list archive, etc. (I have one with the nice domain name `gnu.de'.:-)
What do you think?
We also would be glad if someone familiar with Usenet management (RfD, CfV, etc.) and/or setting up a mail/news gateway could take that job.
Peter
Peter Gerwinski wrote;
So what about following the example of the DJGPP folks and do the following:
- Create a Usenet newsgroup `comp.lang.pascal.gnu'.
Good idea.
- Gate all emails to the GPC mailing list to the newsgroup and vice versa.
Yes.
- Create an additional, moderated mailing list especially for GPC announcements.
Yes.
Best regards, The Chief -------- Dr. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) Email: laa12@keele.ac.uk Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/African_Chief/ Author of: Chief's Installer Pro v5.00 for Win32 ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/win95/install/chief500.zip
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
We also would be glad if someone familiar with Usenet management (RfD, CfV, etc.) and/or setting up a mail/news gateway could take that job.
Unfortunately, such gateways tend to generate lots of spam on a mailinglist. You may want to think twice before doing this.
JanJaap
--- GNU mingw32: http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~janjaap/mingw32
Jan-Jaap van der Heijden wrote:
Unfortunately, such gateways tend to generate lots of spam on a mailinglist. You may want to think twice before doing this.
Indeed, this is a problem. :-(
Maybe the DJGPP folks have some hint for us?
There are cancelbots that cancel EMP Spam, so there is some hope that the Spam gets wiped away before the gateway sees it. Maybe there is a possibility to filter the incoming news, so "suscipious" mails are previewed by a moderator?
Hints welcome,
Peter
Hi!
Jan-Jaap van der Heijden wrote:
Unfortunately, such gateways tend to generate lots of spam on a mailinglist. You may want to think twice before doing this.
Even worse: Subscribers' email addresses would be visible in Usenet thus attracting more email spam (UBE).
However when thinking over this, I feel that _not_ opening a mail/news gateway for this reason means kind of capitulation to the spammers.
Opinions?
Peter
On 10 Mar 99, at 12:59, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
Even worse: Subscribers' email addresses would be visible in Usenet thus attracting more email spam (UBE).
I am a newcomer to this list, but I have had extensive experience with other lists (e.g., GNAT, Cygwin). I will not post messages to lists that have been gatewayed to Usenet, simply because each time that my real e-mail address appears on Usenet, I receive a flood of spam that takes nearly a year to taper off. I willingly contribute to closed lists and enjoy the high signal-to-noise ratio that such lists often have. I resign myself to lurking on those that are not (e.g., the Pegasus Mail list), even if I have information that may be of help.
If the perceived problem is that GPC users are unaware of the mailing list, I would suggest that the solution would be more prominent display of that information, especially subscription information, in the accompanying README files and on the GPC Web site.
However when thinking over this, I feel that _not_ opening a mail/news gateway for this reason means kind of capitulation to the spammers.
I would rather "capitulate" to them than be constantly annoyed by them.
(And I don't agree that it is capitulation; it is accepting the reality of the Internet. Is it capitulation to our automotive society to look both ways before crossing the street? :-)
-- Dave Bryan
J. David Bryan wrote:
I am a newcomer to this list, but I have had extensive experience with other lists (e.g., GNAT, Cygwin). I will not post messages to lists that have been gatewayed to Usenet, simply because each time that my real e-mail address appears on Usenet, I receive a flood of spam that takes nearly a year to taper off. I willingly contribute to closed lists and enjoy the high signal-to-noise ratio that such lists often have. [...]
Okay, what about the following: Let us create one separate list that will be gated to Usenet and keep one closed.
For example:
gpc-announce@gnu.de - moderated list for announcements gpc@gnu.de - unmoderated list for discussions (as now) gpc-news@gnu.de - unmoderated list, gated to usenet
Everything posted to news:comp.lang.pascal.gnu is gated to gpc-news@gnu.de and to gpc@gnu.de. Spam can be sorted out manually on the way from gpc-news to gpc. Everything sent to gpc-news@gnu.de becomes visible in Usenet; this does not hold for gpc@gnu.de. Everything sent to gpc-announce@gnu.de becomes visible in all lists and the newsgroup, but the `From:' header is that of the moderator.
I hope that I got it right and that everybody gets the picture. :-)
If the perceived problem is that GPC users are unaware of the mailing list, I would suggest that the solution would be more prominent display of that information, especially subscription information, in the accompanying README files and on the GPC Web site.
That's already there. For me the main advantage of a newsgroup lies in the possibility just to look into it without the need to subscribe in the first place.
However when thinking over this, I feel that _not_ opening a mail/news gateway for this reason means kind of capitulation to the spammers.
I would rather "capitulate" to them than be constantly annoyed by them.
Here we are entering a field where it is a matter of taste. I think that two separate discussion lists, only one of which is gated to Usenet, is a suitable compromise. The details I sketched above may be worked out differently, if someone has a better idea.
(And I don't agree that it is capitulation; it is accepting the reality of the Internet. Is it capitulation to our automotive society to look both ways before crossing the street? :-)
(No, but it is capitulation to street rowdys to drive faster than one feels secure because one has one of them in ones back. The Right Thing[tm] to do is to sue them for being a danger to everybody.;-)
Greetings,
Peter
On 15 Mar 99, at 3:28, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
Okay, what about the following: Let us create one separate list that will be gated to Usenet and keep one closed.
[...]
I hope that I got it right and that everybody gets the picture. :-)
I *think* I followed that! :-) It addresses my concerns but risks fragmenting the list. For example, if someone posted a message from Usenet, it would show up on gpc@gnu.de. If I then replied to that question using that list, I would not know that the poster would never see my message (because he posted from Usenet), unless there was some way of tagging his original message as coming from the Usenet gateway.
For me the main advantage of a newsgroup lies in the possibility just to look into it without the need to subscribe in the first place.
Hmmm...is there any way to gateway to Usenet in such a way that the "From" e-mail addresses are removed (i.e., trim "From: Dave dbryan@bcpl.net" to just "From: Dave")? Alternately, may I post to this list with an invalid address? Either would remove my main objection.
Of course, do read my suggestions with the understanding that I've only been a list member for a week. I have no idea of how dynamic this list is (if this past week has been any indication, about 50% of the message traffic is spam! :-) :-).
-- Dave Bryan
Hi!
J. David Bryan wrote:
I *think* I followed that! :-) It addresses my concerns but risks fragmenting the list. For example, if someone posted a message from Usenet, it would show up on gpc@gnu.de. If I then replied to that question using that list, I would not know that the poster would never see my message (because he posted from Usenet), unless there was some way of tagging his original message as coming from the Usenet gateway.
Then this tagging should be done.
Hmmm...is there any way to gateway to Usenet in such a way that the "From" e-mail addresses are removed (i.e., trim "From: Dave dbryan@bcpl.net" to just "From: Dave")? Alternately, may I post to this list with an invalid address? Either would remove my main objection.
Doing so is opening a big can of worms. There are well-known admins in Germany who look upon people using an invalid email address for Usenet postings as one apart with the spammers - for good reasons (IMHO) or not (IOHOs), it does not matter.
I still think that three lists as suggested in my last email with usenet articles being tagged in the body of the message is the best way to go.
Of course, do read my suggestions with the understanding that I've only been a list member for a week. I have no idea of how dynamic this list is (if this past week has been any indication, about 50% of the message traffic is spam! :-) :-).
That's a pity because then we are in a bad position for telling that we "need" a Usenet newsgroup devoted to GPC due to the huge traffic in the GPC mailing list ... ;-)-:
Peter
On 16 Mar 99, at 19:14, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
There are well-known admins in Germany who look upon people using an invalid email address for Usenet postings as one apart with the spammers
- for good reasons (IMHO) or not (IOHOs), it does not matter.
I would prefer to use my real e-mail address on Usenet, but I prefer to avoid the spammers more! ;-)
I still think that three lists as suggested in my last email with usenet articles being tagged in the body of the message is the best way to go.
I would certainly be willing to give it a try.
-- Dave Bryan
-
Dr A A Olowofoyeku -
J. David Bryan -
Jan-Jaap van der Heijden -
Peter Gerwinski