Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:32:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:32:13 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:61142 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:32:10 -0400 From: David Schwartz To: , , , X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.61 (1055) - Licensed Version Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:35:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <002701c241bf$54e64010$2102a8c0@gespl2k1> Subject: Re: RE:Re: The spam problem. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <20020812073558.AAA17330@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1072 Lines: 32 On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:15:53 -0500, Jim Roland wrote: >Now there's a good thought! Post, Confirm, gets posted. If member, no >confirmation necessary. You could also put them in a manual hold queue. Give a large number of people ability to approve posts from that queue so latency would be reasonable. The problem with confirmation is that a person might fire off a bug report where they happen to be, via something like dmesg > foo joe foo cat foo + mail -s "Bug report blah blah" linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org A confirmation sent to the source address of that might not be noticed until the next time they happen to log into that account on that machine. You could do both, I guess. A hold queue that can be manually processed with confirmation posting the message and removing it from the hold queue. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/