moderating bionet.xtallography

Ethan Merritt merritt at u.washington.edu
Thu Nov 15 14:49:55 EST 2001


In article <4.3.1.1.20011114143103.00c6b250 at rutchem.rutgers.edu>,
Catherine L. Lawson <lawson at rutchem.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Are you fed up with spam on xtal-log like I am?  

Yes. In fact for some time now I have been on the edge of dropping it from 
my newsreader altogether.

>Benefits of moderation:  No more garbage mail to wade through.  The list 
>can therefore serve its intended purpose of being a valuable tool to help 
>us all with our science, instead of being an annoyance.

This is of course the desired result.  It is quite possible for spammers
to forge the moderation approval, though.  I don't know how widespread 
that is.  Yet.  But eventually it would happen.

>Drawback: Messages suitable for the list will be slightly delayed in 
>posting.  (I will find suitable substitutes during periods I am away or on 
>vacation).

Not a problem for most messages.

>If you have any strong opinions, positive or negative, about to converting 
>xtal-log to a moderated group, please post them to the group: 
>xtal-log at net.bio.net

That is not a valid usenet group that can be posted to.  
Did you mean people should Email there?
-- 
Ethan A Merritt





More information about the Xtal-log mailing list