[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is email really that hard?
On 02/22/2017 10:10 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:02:50PM -0300, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017, at 5:51 AM, oshwm <oshwm AT openmailbox.org> wrote:
>>> On 22 February 2017 08:34:43 GMT+00:00, Eugen Leitl <eugen AT leitl.org> wrote:
>>>> Who is the list owner these days? If we do not get moderation going I'm
>>>> out of here.
>>> Bye then :)
>> oshwm wasn't being offensive or aggressive. He/she (I don't know
>> whether is a girl or a boy, never needed to ask it) was just
>> informing you - in a bit ironic way, I admit - that CP is a list
>> with absolutely NO moderation.
> I really made a mistake back then. This list should have never been
> resurrected in the current form.
Well, I believe that there have often been multiple cypherpunks lists,
some moderated and some not, but generally sharing messages. Back in the
90s, I was on a filtered list. The main list was mostly spam.
So now, the list is mostly alt-right spam :(
>> I don't know whether Riad is still the list owner and Greg is only
>> managing it, or whether Greg also became the new list owner (never
>> needed to ask it too, haha), but both are good persons, kind and
>> very, very, very patient. I really appreciate a lot both, and hope
> Tolerance and patience will kill even the best list.
>> nobody annoys them. :)
>> Take care, be patient and create filters, please.
> This is not the way to keep a list healthy and sane. Pretty soon there
> will be zero traffic passing your filters.
That is a problem. I'm already dropping ~70% of messages, because I
filter on both sender and body. So sometimes, I miss interesting stuff
when someone sane has hijacked a bullshit thread, but doesn't redact
unwanted sender names.
That's easy to fix: redact bullshit and bullshit authors :)
That harder problem is disagreement over what should be filtered. So the
list fragments so much that there's too little activity on any fragment.
That's an argument for moderation.
> It's allright, I haven't read anything worthwhile here in years.
I hope that you're exaggerating ;)