CFV: moderate sci.cryonics -- CENSORING antispammers

[Igor Chudov @ home]

Jay Denebeim (denebeim at deepthot.cary.nc.us) wrote
* Igor Chudov @ home <ichudov at 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