Ray Arachelian wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
2. The only possible scheme that could work long-term would be a moderated list plus a deleted (excised?) list of posts which didn't make the moderator's cut. Having a moderated list and a full unmoderated list is certain to fail, and I'm not too sure that they don't have this in mind already.
What makes you say that there is only one scheme that can succeed? Why is having a moderated list and an unmoderated list bound to fail? The plan actually (unless it changed without my knowlege) is to have 3 lists. 1 moderated, 1 rejects, 1 unmoderated. This can be optimized as 1 moderated and 1 rejects as you propose, since asking for all is the same as asking for moderated+rejects.
Does not the moderated list, moderated by YOU, already exist? I am confused. - Igor.
3. Not making the unmoderated list first-up (i.e., cutting posts first, then making the "full" list available later) is suspicious, or at least a bad idea.
What difference does it make if a message is delayed for 10-30 minutes? Why is it a bad idea or suspicious? If you post something and it doesn't
It is indeed suspicious because it raises a possibility of concealed human involvement.
The point was to optimize the sendmail to send moderated messages first.
What does that optimise if there is a more or less continuous traffic? That's a non-answer. - Igor.