Quoting Michael P:
For any unmoderated (Posting:Allowed) we can do (about?) nothing
to prevent inappropriate posting(s) - at least prior to,
though we can remove inappropriate posting(s) from the archive - but
that does nothing to prevent such postings from being mailed to all
So ... should we change to:
No posting restrictions for new members
That may be significantly more inviting for new members.
That may also risk some spam / inappropriate posting(s) - though we
can, after the fact, add moderation to the offending member
and remove the posting from the archive.
And of course we could always again set:
New member posts are moderated
I previously wrote:
completely eliminating the 'moderated' flag on subscribed senders
rather puts the major burden of "working incrementally harder" on
listadmins instead, and rather significantly eases the burden on
both legitimate and illegitimate posters to get out their postings.
At some point or another on a fairly continuous basis, listadmins
could (or even should) keep on top of completely unmoderated
mailing-lists for the clear benefit of other subscribers to ensure
both that the Volume of messages is at a manageable level and
that the Content of threads is at least reasonably appropriate
for the list (e.g., no spam-type messages, no drivel, no
excessive or at all advertisements, ...etc.)
Before elaborating upon this further, I would hazard a guess that all
those reading this post would tend to agree that should the BerkeleyLUG
mailing-list admin(s) completely unmoderate new member posts, there
is a minimal to negligible likelihood that the mailing-list would essentially
be a veritable free-for-all and subsequently become besieged/flooded
with a host of illegitimate posts or those of dubious origin or purpose.
The mailing-list quite simply just isn't that big of a juicy target.
At the same time, a worrisome case in point of questionable Content
for a mailing-list that was originally only minimally moderated was
that of a post to the Artix Linux mailing-list/forum.
As some of you might realize, Artix Linux is one out of several less
popular Linux distros that doesn't have the systemd init[ialization]
system activated by default. While the non-systemd distros MX
Linux, antiX, and Devuan are based upon Debian GNU/Linux, Artix
Linux is instead based upon Arch Linux.
While there are no doubt qualifiers for how serious the issue really
was, the worrisome case-in-point, IIRC, was a post on this
minimally-moderated Artix Linux forum that was perceived as
"Antisemetic"(sic) by forum member Ruben S of Brklyn, NY
over the last several years or so. Could not easily find the
questionable thread the last time I visited the Artix Linux forum,
but I suspect that the listadmins greatly upped their
moderation-level by deleting or burying the objectionable post and
its thread. Furthermore, the following banner message now
continually scrolls on top of its forum pages:
Due to a series of spam posts, all new forum
registrations will require administrator approval.
Spam accounts and their posts have been deleted.
(from https://forum.artixlinux.org/index.php/ )
Don't have any statistics available on how much more (or less)
"inviting" the Artix Linux forum/mailing-list became for atttracting
new members and their posts following the above issue, but that
mailing-list apparently became a much larger juicy target for
spam accounts and their posts than is the BerkeleyLUG
mailing-list, and subsequently the former now essentially _requires_
heavier moderation. Sure, you/we can certainly start off similar to
that of the Artix Linux list by having no posting restrictions for new
members and "after the fact, add moderation to the offending
member and remove the posting from the archive".
An emphasized point of this, IMHO, is that keeping around the
ability to quickly increase moderation even for the BerkeleyLUG
mailing-list can and should be readily kept on the table for the
unlikelihood that it should becomes more of a juicy target for
questionable accounts and their posts -- and even if/when
you/we BerkeleyLUG listadmins should currently decide to
completely unmoderate new member subscriptions and their