Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:47:52 +0300, Felipe Contreras felipe.contreras@gmail.com wrote:
No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there already. If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is moderated, the spam filter would help go through the moderation queue.
In the current world, you get significantly less spam by restricting posts to subscribers. Unless your list is big enough to be worth the trouble of spammers to subscribe. In the future this might be different, but for now requiring subscription is a legitimate antispam technique.
Again, that's speculation. Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to, allow non-subscribers to post, and there are as many occasional posters who don't have a clue there, than here. So again, I don't think it's sensible to apply prejudices based on the people's subscription, which is very simple to do.
That probably has more to do with the kinds of lists you use rather than being a general principle.
Not on all lists. Moderators often lack the time. I speak as one such, and some posts simply don't make it because they have waited too long for attention. It is not scalable. If the list is very active, the problem gets far worse.
Again, other lists manage just fine. Speculation.
Are you volunteering to do the work to make that happen?
Having run mailing lists and ISP size (6M users) news servers, I can suggest that the practice of hand moderation of non-subscribers and new subscribers results in a manageable read load. And auto-passing a reply to a previous post where the reply doesn't have top posting can reduce it farther.
Just a thought.