<<> or to have the HP3000 discussion out in the open. Steve Dirickson
votes for a
        > closed list. On the whole, I think that that's a mistake.>>


"Closed list?" Say what? I don't think that's what I said, and I'm *very*
sure that's not what I meant. Having a list that requires verification of
identity before accepting postings is, in my mind, a far cry from a "closed
list"; to me, that means some kind of "you have to know the secret handshake"
thing. Perhaps some clarification is in order:

1)      LISTSERV allows you to set up a mailing list so that all subscription
requests are automatically refused, by specifying "SUBSCRIPTION= CLOSED".
This is *not* what I'm suggesting, though it sounds like what Wirt thinks I'm
suggesting.
2)      LISTSERV defaults to "SUBSCRIPTION= BY OWNER", meaning that
subscription requests are forwarded to the list owner for approval. I don't
think this is the way hp3000-l is currently set up, though it might be.
3)      What I was actually thinking is the setting of...well, let's let the
L-Soft people say it themselves: "To code a list for open subscriptions
without list owner intervention, you set SUBSCRIPTION= OPEN. If you would
like to add protection against forged subscription requests or bad return
mailing paths, code SUBSCRIPTION= OPEN,CONFIRM. The latter will cause a
subscription confirmation request to be sent to the prospective subscriber,
which he or she must respond to using the "OK" confirmation mechanism." This
setting is less reliable in terms of rejecting requests from bogus sources,
but it's also zero work for the owner, in contrast to the "BY OWNER" setting.
I am under the impression that this is the current setting for hp3000-l.
4)      Finally, the core of my position is related to the settings for who
can post messages to the list. If you'll indulge me for a longer quote from
the LISTSERV documentation:

"The Send= list header keyword is the basic control for who may post mail to
the list. If the list allows non-subscribers to post, set Send= Public.

For a list that does not allow non-subscribers to post, set Send= Private.
For a list where all posts should be forwarded to a moderator/editor, there
are two settings:
*       Send= Editor forwards all postings to the list editor (see the
Editor= and Moderator= keywords). This setting allows the editor to make
changes before forwarding the message back to the list. Note that your mail
program must be capable of inserting "Resent-" header lines in your forwarded
mail--if it is not capable of this, all such posts forwarded to the list will
appear to be coming from the editor. Check with your system administrator if
you are not sure whether or not your mail program inserts the "Resent-"
headers.
*       Send= Editor,Hold forwards a copy of the posting to the editor but
differs from Send= Editor in that LISTSERV holds the posting for a period of
time (usually 7 days) until the editor confirms the message with the "OK"
mechanism (see below). Unconfirmed messages simply expire and are flushed by
LISTSERV, so there is no need to formally disapprove a posting. This method
of message confirmation is well-suited to lists where it is not often
necessary to modify the text of a posting, and also is an excellent
workaround if the editor's mail program does not generate "Resent-" headers
in forwarded mail."

If you put these settings together appropriately, you can get a list where
1)      Only subscribed members have unrestricted posting privileges, but
non-subscribers can post with owner approval, and
2)      Subscribing requires either a machine-verified source address or
owner approval.

*That's* what I'm suggesting.

Frankly, these requirements just don't seem that onerous to me, and in no way
constitute a "closed list" setup, But, since many/most bulk spammers hide
behind bogus addresses, these settings would automatically exclude such
postings with no human intervention required. Since we don't exactly have
hundreds of new subscribers every week beating down the doors, putting a
throttle on the subscription process should not cause significant problems
for legitimate users, but the suggested settings would cause major
difficulties for bulk spammers.

They would also, however, cause the link to/from the Usenet newsgroup to
reject some number of postings coming from the newsgroup. Again, I just don't
see that as a big deal. The gateway would, I assume, still allow postings to
the list to appear on the newsgroup, and it doesn't seem all that
unreasonable to ask people who prefer to interact only with the newsgroup to
subscribe to the list first. Note that this does *not* mean that they would
have to post directly to the list; they could still post only to the
newsgroup, and their newsgroup articles would be gatewayed (is that a word?)
onto the list-as long as the address they use to post to the newsgroup
matches their subscriber info for the list. I personally feel that people who
try to use mailing list software to manage newsgroup traffic or vice versa
are using the wrong tool for the job, but that's their prerogative-I still
remove ICs with two small screwdrivers, because I'm too lazy to get the
proper extractor tool.


So what is not clear now?


Steve