Re: Taking out the garbage

I'd like to point out that accepting posts from those who are not
technically subscribed to the list is not always a bad idea.  In particular,
many of us read the list through means other than a direct subscription,
be it either a mail-to-news gateway, web server, filtered list, or other
such mechanism.

As a case in point, while I do read the list, my actual email address is not
subscribed to it. :)

While I usually don't contribute to the discussion, I hope that the few
posts I have made from time to time don't fall into the pollution category.
Furthermore, it's often the case that noted cryptographers who are not
subscribed to the list occasionally post valuable contributions to it (e.g.
Matt Blaze).

Non-subscription and pollution are not necessarily related.

Dana W. Albrecht
dwa@corsair.com


Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> writes:  
> Beginning Monday, 11/25/96, I will bounce all email from the various 
> (non-)subscribers polluting this list with garbage back to the 
> authors. Furthermore, I will attach documents describing basic 
> Internet rules of conduct to each bounce.
> 
> I would encourage other Cypherpunks to do the same.

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dana W. Albrecht wrote:

> 
> 
> I'd like to point out that accepting posts from those who are not
> technically subscribed to the list is not always a bad idea.

I agree. I am not suggesting that non-subscribers should be blocked from 
posting to the list. Nor am I claiming that non-subscribers post a higher 
rate of garbage to the list. All I am saying is that I will bounce 
garbage originating from non-subscriber and subscriber alike back to the 
authors. I encourage others on the list choose to do the same.

--Lucky