So we could flip the management of the list on its head, then, and make the list wide open but blacklist spammers ... except that you then find yourself in a reactive mode. In other words, spam gets onto the list because the list is open, so you add the sender's email address to the blacklist, which works until they pick another email address and you are waiting to spot spam again. That *potentially* is a tougher approach to take because if someone isn't *actively* blacklisting the spammers, you could end up with a lot of spam on the list once someone finds it.

This may still be a better way to go. I'm not arguing either side :-). I'm just highlighting a potential drawback to going the "open" route.

On 20 February 2013 10:51, Viresh Kumar <> wrote:
On 20 February 2013 16:19, Wookey <> wrote:
> +++ Philip Colmer [2013-02-20 08:36 +0000]:
>>    I'm not entirely comfortable with blindly white-listing anyone who posts
>>    to linaro-dev with something that doesn't look like spam, for several
>>    reasons:
>>    1. That is not a great way to run a moderated mailing list.
>>    2. IT aren't going to be in the best position to say whether or not the
>>    sender should�be able to send to linaro-dev, even if they didn't send
>>    spam.
> Why do we want to block anyone from linaro-dev unless they are
> spamming (which would include being too-far off-topic)?
> Arguments about the admin load of moderation, or the difficulties of
> spam-filtering accurately on an open list, I can understand; but the
> idea that this list should be restricted to only suitably enlightened
> people by default seems wrong to me. It should be as open as we can
> practically make it, shouldn't it?


linaro-dev mailing list