moderation and spam

Sandahl, Gary SANDAHLGA at phibred.com
Thu Dec 2 16:55:39 EST 1999


I have received postings to the fluoropro newsgroup by e-mail and so have to
go through and delete the messages that are not science based.  I've been
told the web based page (http://www.bio.net/hypermail/FLUORESCENT-PROTEINS/)
is a better way to do it because then you only open the ones you are
interested in.  This does save a lot of time, you just need to remember to
check periodically.  

What I was suggesting was in no way censorship but simply keeping the
posting science based.  Rather than 2000 (?) people going through and
cleaning up the junk, there is some efficiency in one person doing it.   

For me, the web page will work.  

Gary Sandahl

Subject: Re: spam in GFP MAIL LIST <fluorpro at net.bio.net
<mailto:fluorpro at net.bio.net>>
Date: 2 Dec 1999 10:06:08 -0800
Dear Newsgroup
As a subscriber of several newsgroups I agree in preferring no unrelated
being distributed through the groups. This also includes all kinds of
"unsubscribe"/"subscribe" trials and other stuff of no interest.
However, I do not agree on the moderation proposal. If the mail (even when
sexually explicit or whatever stupid credit/job offer is coming in) is not
worth reading, I delete it. I find it rather acceptable to face the fact
that world is imperfect (and crap is being sent through the internet) than
having somebody waisting two hours of his/her life every day to protect us
from seeing it. And after reviewing the last couple of pages of fluoropro
messages I must say that it is not all that bad.
If a software could do the job I would support the idea - as long as
questions about sexual dimorphisms in fluorescent deep sea organisms would
get through anyway. But in general I think we're old enough to be our own

More information about the Fluorpro mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net