dns based loadbalancing/failover

Sun Oct 7 20:05:09 UTC 2001

> > Most mailing lists I am on seem to get by fine without overt
> > moderation - including this one.
> you have your facts wrong.  the operators of this mailing list are
perfectly
> capable of sending private mail to people like me who keep posting
off-topic
> drivel like the message i am now typing.
yup - I have had one or two of those (admittedly justified too :) but
there is a difference between a handslap by private email and censorship
by selectively rejecting posts; there is also a much bigger difference
between a handslap over something already posted (even in public) and
precensorship by making sure the rest of the list never see the posts in
question in the first place.

> > Most moderated lists I am on seem to get by with thread killing - an
> > argument is allowed to run for a few posts, then the moderator posts
that
> > he is officially killing the thread, and further posts on that will
be
> > rejected (and should be taken to email).
> sure.  namedroppers at ops.ietf.org works that way, as an example of one
such.
I am not in a position to argue this one either way - I don't sub to
that list, having little to contribute.
If you say that namedroppers is not in the class of lists I am
attacking, then I am happy to take your word for it :)

> > Prefiltering to suit *any* one individuals opinion of what is or
isn't on
> > topic seems highly suspect for any list, and unacceptable on a list
> > supposedly to define policy.
> so in order for a policy-defining forum to be considered
representative, it
> must be open to all posts on all topics from all parties at all times?
no, but it must be open to anything even *remotely* on topic, or how can
you make a balanced judgement? If individual people are offensive to
individual readers, they have killfilters...
Meta-discussion (to a certain extent) must also be on topic -
particularly discussion of the list charter.

> > Note I have never read the list in question, so am arguing on
general
> > principles here, not this specific instance..... perhaps a parallel
list
> > setup (with $listname and $listname-filtered) could be set up with
posts
> > making it to the second list only with moderator approval?
> i'm sure that if one were set up it would be used by many people.
(not me.)
I don't see why not - if it were reversed (and $listname and
$listname-unfiltered) would that be more acceptable to you? it would
even be transparent (you need change nothing, and everything will look
just as it was)