From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 18:09:34 MDT
Humania wrote:
> Honestly, I do not understand why you make such a fuzz about
> ist, adding
> more control procedures, or urging list administrators to
> implement more
> functions that might make the system susceptible to collapses.
>
> Why don't you (plural again) just relax and let the news
> stream into your
> computer and forget about control for a while . . .
>
I did that for a couple of years, and it was ok. Then I tried "filtering" it
a little, experimentally (in effect splitting the list in two, one which I
read almost all of, and one which I read sometimes, but not often or most
of). It improved my experience of the list considerably.
I'm happy to stick with that, with personal filtering. However, I supported
Mark's proposal, as an alternative to moderation. Given that there have been
problems with the list because of the free-for-all approach (according to
others; it's never worried me personally), I'd much rather see a
decentralised solution to signal/noise and abuse problems than a centralised
one. I think that public feedback about filters is probably a very useful
tool in this regard.
However, I'd be more than happy for the list to remain unfettered; leave
each subscriber to manage his/her own data flood; it's the individual's
option.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 18:20:00 MDT