It's too bad that namedroppers can't be referred to as a free and open forum to discuss such issues (see http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html)
Oh god, not that again. Listen, if you want a forum where anybody can say anything to anybody about anything at any time, then start one, go read alt.flame. In neither case will you find me there. In the real life of nominal grownups, some things are limited in some places at some times.
Oh god, not that again. Listen, if you want a forum where anybody can say anything to anybody about anything at any time, then start one, go read alt.flame. In neither case will you find me there. In the real life of nominal grownups, some things are limited in some places at some times. *shrug* Most mailing lists I am on seem to get by fine without overt moderation - including this one. Most moderated lists I am on seem to get by with thread killing - an argument is allowed to run for a few
"Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com> wrote: posts, then the moderator posts that he is officially killing the thread, and further posts on that will be rejected (and should be taken to email). Prefiltering to suit *any* one individuals opinion of what is or isn't on topic seems highly suspect for any list, and unacceptable on a list supposedly to define policy. Note I have never read the list in question, so am arguing on general principles here, not this specific instance..... perhaps a parallel list setup (with $listname and $listname-filtered) could be set up with posts making it to the second list only with moderator approval?
participants (2)
-
David Howe
-
Paul Vixie