🚀 go-pugleaf

Howdy folks,

Just got off the line from a long yak with our Co-ordinatrix, Michele Sura.
Much was discussed but one of the items was this spam-stuff we
keep getting. As usual some ideas were reviewed and it was agreed to post
for opinion. .

So,....Tom,....have you got an opinion? Mike are there any options
that won't work?

Seeya,
Steve Gallinger, ISP


Issues reviewed;
*******************

1) We want to promote CIPS discussions

2) We want to hear from external e-beings and companies
about such things as call for papers, neat new net-newsletter,
press info-requests, steve's canoe-trip buddies (well maybe not them, <g>)
et al.

3) We don't want agency ad's

4) We don't want to be whamed by spam crammed onto our list

5) We might want to hear from other IT societies via our list.

6) We don't want to much 'noise' on the list but what is noise and
what is signal is open to much debate.



List Function Options discussed
**************************************
1) Continue wide open list

3) Make subscription to the list restricted to only CIPS members
and selected external subscribers but allow postings from all
(ie. only we receive what's posted but the world may post to
our list).

4) Make subscription restricted and only allow postings from within
the list

5) Keep subscription open + point 3 above
6) Keep subscription open + point 4 above

**Note that for Mike MacDonald, net-guru to University of New Brunswick,
our Listserv benefactor, options 4 and 6 give him problems. I'll let him
explain the whyzees. Basically external posting makes his
participation in CIPS-L easier.


Issues to discuss;
*********************

1) Should we have our Co-ordinatrix be responsible for
violation monitoring, contacting offender & pointing out problem
with a suggestion re: appropriate response, etc. as she did
in this recent case? BTW, well done Michele. We wouldn't
all have to spend much think time on it when scanning
our CIPS-L mail (ie. just delete as soon as you realize what it
is and let Michele deal with it).

2) In response to my publish-a-FAQ suggestion,it was suggested
that a posting was unneccessary as the users of this list should
already know the netiquette rule of 'read awhile before you post'
and hence would know what was 'acceptable use'. We would
be preaching to the converted.