Tugger the SLUGger!SLUG Mailing List Archives

Re: [SLUG] Time to re-visit a curly one

Jeff Waugh wrote:
But both are wrong.

(I always have a problem with your replies Jeff and on this front I know I'm not alone. Your statement above leaves no room for argument it's just so damn self righteous. "You're wrong" which by implication means "I'm right". Very confrontational. An 8 or 9 on the "RTFM insult scale" but lets not go there again ;)

Yes my two statements are slightly different. The second one describes one of the consequences of what I was proposing which you expanded on below. I.E if you remove all traces of the original senders e-mail address then one of the consequences is that (unless the poster provides their e-mail address in the body of the message) any reply can only go back to the list. Thus my original question; "is this such a bad thing"?

Even if you munge out the From: header, a smart SPAM harvester will still be
able to acquire your email address. Look at all the headers in any mail from
this list. For this approach to have any value, almost all the identifying
headers would have to be stripped, making identification of the poster kinda
challenging (apart from those who have obvious signatures).

(exactly what I'm proposing)

Participation in
a list like that would be fun as a social experiment or research project but
terrible for building and maintaining a vibrant community. No thanks!

A statement but where's the supporting argument. What is in fact so bad about a list whereby the senders e-mail is not automatically disclosed by the mailing software? Do you really claim to be an expert on social behaviour that you know this will cause people to drop out of the community?

Why is that?

Do you think people will refuse to post to a list if their e-mail address is not automatically exposed to all recipients? If a poster wishes to be contacted off-list then they can reveal their e-mail within the body in such a manner that a human can contact them but an e-mail harvesting program cannot.

Do you think that posters will slander people on the list because they think they can't be identified. Combined with my first suggestion that posters have to be subscribed, then the list admin staff can trace the author of objectionable material. (yes I realise that I'm advocating work for others at this point)

Do you think people won't reply because they don't know the (e-mail) identity of the original poster? Most people sign their e-mail and reveal their identity in the Sender name (the bit outside the <email@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, I'm not advocating the removal of that. Most people expecting an answer to a question or seeking help would understand that they might have to reveal their name or some such if they expect a reply.

I personally am considering reluctantly removing my self from this community because of the increasing chaff which I suspect is about to become a flood. Would you choose to join a community which involved dealing with a constant stream of spam? (Not that I'm suggesting slug is a stream of spam at the moment, but it's on the rise) Which is the lesser of two evils here?

Whilst the rhetoric that spammers be damned lets not give into them is endearing it's not realistic. And the "jumping through hoops" to communicate with someone is a bit emotive. I certainly don't want to make it hard to communicate but is what I'm proposing really going to make it hard to communicate? Only with those who choose to make it hard. Essentially I'm advocating the poster can choose (rather than the list admin), how hard they want to make it for people to reply.

Till tomorrow