On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:50:43PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >>LSM had a perfect signal:noise ratio when we used a closed list, but > >>LKML politik forced the imperfect approach of "open/filter" on us :-/ > >>We're doing the best we can to filter, but this has been a very bad month. > >> > >> > >Oh, come on, tell us how you really feel about kernel developers... > > > I feel fine about kernel developers, but I have always been mystified by > the level of anger that a "closed" list (one where non-subscribers posts > get trapped for human moderation) generates. Yes, I'm aware that at > least one list maintainer abused the human moderation to filter posts he > didn't like. But I would ascribe that kind of anti-social behavior to > the individual and not generalize it to "closed lists are *bad*." > > So what is it that PO's so many kernel developers about closed lists? > The above pathology, or something else? Something else. It's been explained before. And if you've ever gotten messages from a list that was added to the CC: line of an email thread that started bouncing back to you, "Your post to a moderated list..." you would know why too. Also there's the speed issue too. There's no way a moderated list can ever approach the turn around time of a moderated one for 24 hours of the day. > >I have a set of mailman filters that I have offered to your admins many > >times in the past that filter out html messages, and a lot of other crap > >that obviously does not belong on the list. > > > That sounds like a good idea. Send me a pointer and I'll put them in myself. As Chris already said you are filtering out html, it's probably not needed anymore. greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 07:50:12 PDT