Honestly, as a moderator, none of these discussions are motivating.
IMHO the report helps. And I don't care if it comes via -slaves or -www.
gb.-
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> >> So the rest of us have to start filtering junk from our -www
>> >> subscription? Please undo this.
>>
>> > Unless you have a better way of ensuring everything gets moderated.
>> > This was discussed last week,
>>
>> Discussed where? Not here, that I saw.
>>
>> Personally, I'm perfectly capable of procmail'ing these things into
>> oblivion, and I'm sure most of the other subscribers to -www are too.
>> So in a week or so the only effect that these missives will have is
>> to permanently clutter the list archives.
>
> Agreed. The core problem is that moderators have to dig through tons of
> spam/duplicates/cross-posting to do anything meaningful, and they are
> resigning under that load. Address that core issue; shaming is not
> going to help anyone.
>
> Case in point --- I resubscribed to the press@postgresql.org mailing
> list to help assist people, but there is so much spam that my
> spamasassin baynes filter now considers all press@ email to be spam so I
> don't see it anymore. Hopefully if a legitimate press email arrives,
> spamasassin will let it through, but I doubt it. So I tried to help,
> but will not actually help much.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www
>