Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy

[ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)]

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.