I completely agree with Garmt on the matter of forum availability - however, I think what Harry meant (correct me if I'm wrong, Harry) was that only the list of e-mail addresses (not the actual postings themselves) would be restricted to long-term active members. If so, it doesn't sound particularly over-the-top to me - worth considering, at least.
Alex
--- On Sat, 8/14/10, Garmt de Vries-Uiterweerd <garmtdevries~at~gmail.com> wrote:
From: Garmt de Vries-Uiterweerd <garmtdevries~at~gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I am sorry to state that the forum has become a target for scammers
To: "Jules Verne Forum" <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
Date: Saturday, August 14, 2010, 2:39 AM
William, there's a difference between sPammers (those who post mass
mailings to sell pharmaceuticals and whatnot) and sCammers (those who
fool people into paying a lot of money for something they're never
going to get).
That said, I have never had any problem with either spammers or
scammers through the JV Forum. I had a look in my spam folder, but
nothing there either... I believe there is a rather efficient spam
filter on the server end of the forum, but you can't exclude the
occasional spam/scam slipping through. Restricting the posting of
messages to long-term active members goes against the whole idea of
free communication between Verne fans.
Cheers,
Garmt.
On 14 August 2010 06:11, WILLIAM JONES <wbj514~at~sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> This proposal seems, with all due respect, a bit over the top. Although I
> can speak only for myself, I've never had any trouble with spammers -- the
> U.S. term for the breed -- in my Jules Verne Forum email. I enjoy keeping up
> with the various postings on issues of current interest in the international
> Vernian community without feeling compelled to weigh in on any of them.
> Imposing publish-or-perish or use-it-or-lose-it criteria would amount to
> overkill.
>
>
>
Received on Sat 14 Aug 2010 - 15:19:44 IDT