Re: [ga-abuse] Agreement on Procedures

[Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>]

I agree. Even though I may see the [ga-full] postings, they don't *count*
until they show up on the [ga] list as a post. Then I count them.
IMHO...:)

/Bruce


----- Original Message -----
From: <R.Gaetano@iaea.org>
To: <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 06:27
Subject: RE: [ga-abuse] Agreement on Procedures


Hi.
I fail to see how we can change that, as anybody, even non-subscribers, can
post to GA-full sending a message to ga@dnso.org.
This was not by rule, but by design.
Roberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2001 13:17
> To: Patrick Corliss
> Cc: [ga-abuse]
> Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] Agreement on Procedures
>
>
> At 11:13 25.04.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >Sorry I phrased it badly.  Just an incorrect way of thinking.  I am
> >subscribed to [ga-full]  and assume that a person might be
> subscribed to
> >[ga] when they get suspended.
> >
> >Without quite understanding how these two lists are related,
> the suspended
> >person can then post mail which is distributed to everone on
> [ga-full] but
> >not those on[ga].  Thus they are invisible as far as the
> normal mailing list
> >is concerned.
> >
> >However, as the are not posting to [ga] they can say what they like.
>
> Right. I'd like to change that - but it requires a rules
> change, which
> requires a vote.
>
> >I agree with you other comments (yes, we need a secretary)
> and would like to
> >see what people's views are.  If we need to handle
> complaints urgently, five
> >people is a bit hard to manage.
>