Jay Denebeim (denebeim@deepthot.cary.nc.us) wrote * Igor Chudov @ home <ichudov@algebra.com> wrote: * * > Charles, sci.cryonics may well be in need of moderation. The * > proponent may also be a great person. I also have deep respect for * > you personally. But the provision in the charter that does not * > allow postings without a replyable sender address is rather * > unfortunate. I would certainly vote yes if that particular provision * > was removed. Otherwise, I find it unacceptable for myself to vote * > YES. * * Why is that Igor? There's been very little, if any, spam generated to * rastb5m users, and that provision has been in place since before * anti-spam forgeries were in vogue. If spammers arn't mining a TV * group, they certainly wouldn't be mining a sci group. I see your point, Jay. What you are suggesting, probably not without reason, is that the spam volume is not expected to be huge. I may agree to that. The problem with this argument is that 1) No matter how much spam they get, posters have a legitimate reason to protect themselves 2) Typically, altering the reply address is done before the newsreader is even started, changing it for only one censorous newsgroup is a royal pain in the back 3) People should have freedom to post anonymously, especially on such sensitive topic as cryonics 4) Anonymity is NOT a threat to moderated newsgroups Considering all that, I do not consider the proposed charter to be acceptable. (see http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=5944883&server=db97p2x&CONTEXT=864091788.16601&hitnum=11