Who maintains ruby-talk?
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: how can i add tones to my pc's sound card
Next: Undefined method `ire' with rubygems on mswin32
From: Walton Hoops on 15 Apr 2010 14:07 On 4/15/2010 11:57 AM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > Strange... when I do it to myself it unsubscribes me with no confirmation. > That is strange. A by account setting maybe? Looking through the 'help' command I'm not seeing anything like that though. Probably a question only Matz could answer.
From: Aldric Giacomoni on 15 Apr 2010 14:22 Tony Arcieri wrote: > Strange... when I do it to myself it unsubscribes me with no > confirmation. Maybe it does a slightly more thorough check than you realize. Are your fingerprints on your keyboard? /tinfoilhat off -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Justin Collins on 15 Apr 2010 15:17 Dylan Northrup wrote: > A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Justin Collins wrote: > > :=As for your moderation concerns, I do not share them, nor do I really > :=understand your vehemence (my perception!) on the issue. Trolls should not be > :=fed, spammers should be blocked. > > In the absence of moderation or some central authority, spammers cannot be > blocked. Or, more properly, it's up to each individual subscriber to block > a spammer at the point of receipt. > Oh, as for that, Matz blocks spammers on the mailing list, and Google has spam filtering on its side for the newsgroup. I am not sure about the forums. -Justin
From: Jonathan Nielsen on 15 Apr 2010 15:20 > > Oh, as for that, Matz blocks spammers on the mailing list, and Google has > spam filtering on its side for the newsgroup. I am not sure about the > forums. > > The forum makes a user evaluate a ruby program in order to register. Which would be ridiculously easy for a bot to do, but it would have to be targetted specifically at the forum. Actually, it's not a very good CAPTCHA at all imo, since it's something that is easy for a machine to do and hard for a regular person to do. But... I'm not in charge. Thank goodness. -Jonathan Nielsen
From: Joel VanderWerf on 15 Apr 2010 16:56
Robert Klemme wrote: > My stance is this: I do feel zero pain with regard to spam. I checked > my GMail account and there are 6 emails in the last 30 days that I have > or the spam filter has marked spam. I can easily ignore threads and the > bandwidth is only relevant for Google (btw, SMTP should make just one > copy of every mail to all GMail accounts subscribed travel the net). > > Also, I do not consider recent traffic as spam: apparently there was > enough interest in the community to discuss this. So even with > moderation enabled these messages would have made it into everybody's > inboxes. > > On the contrary, moderation not only slows things down but it also has a > different effect: the community delegates maintaining a healthy biotope > to moderators. I prefer the current solution where everybody is > responsible for balancing things out. I think it has worked out > remarkably well in the last years and I do not really see a major > degradation. > > I haven't see a compelling reason why we should have moderation now. As > long as that has not changed I am strongly against moderation. I vote with Robert Klemme for the above reasons. By usenet standards (or really any Internet public discussion standards), the recent "spam" was a minor hiccup in the harmony of our little group. This episode doesn't seem to have reduced the overall civility of the group, so why worry? |