Wes et al, > > Maintaining a set of spam filters would be nice, and I'd be inclined to > vote that way > to keep the list "open" BUT I'd be hesitant to impose that kind of extra > workload on > the list administrator. > > -- > Wes Groleau > http://AFATDS/~wwgrol > http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes > One approach is to moderate the list. This would obviously put some burden on the list admin, but might actually be easier for him than trying to fine-tune a spam filter system. Personally, I don't find it burdensome just to delete spam. Yeah, it's some extra keystrokes every day, but not beyond my patience yet. I turned off much of the filtering they do here at GW, because it was over-filtering. For example, any message that comes from an open relay is assumed to be spam and is diverted into a user's spam folder. Unfortunately, I missed a good deal of important mail, just because the sender's site sent it through a relay. So rather than having to remember to read my spam folder regularly, I decided it was easier just to let the spam flow into my normal in-box, and use my delete key a few times a day. This is a tough problem for everyone here. IMHO, - We don't want the spam - We don't want to close the list to non-subscribers - till now we've always wanted the list to be as accessible as possible, to let us be as evangelical as we wanted to be - We don't want to make the admin spend all his time tweaking the filtering system - no matter how hard he tries, it'll never be perfect anyway It seems to me the best approach is to moderate it. If it doesn't put an unacceptable burden on Mike Berman, he can just release the non-spam messages with the press of a key. It doesn't matter if the release is delayed a bit, as there's very little truly urgent traffic here. If moderating is unacceptable to Mike, I'd vote for just leaving it as it is, and readers will just delete the spam without comment. That works for me; maybe it'll work for the rest of us. Mike Feldman