🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 rutat@CADVISION.COM wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, "Steve Gallinger, ISP" <steve@NET-GUIDE.COM> wrote:
<snip>>
> >1) We want to promote CIPS discussions
>
> This would have to be the raison d'etre, for CIPS-L, no?  But is it only me
> who is disappointed by the lack of postings on CIPS-L in general?  Or does no
> one else care about the issues (professionalism, etc) raised on this forum?
>
As current newsletter editor for Queen City I am suprised by the lack of
traffic on this list.  Are we all too busy?  I think I'm as guilty as
anyone on this list for lurking at the same time as I berate my
readership for their lack of contribution to our local chapter/newsletter.
Does the CIPS membership in general care about the information they
receive?  Do they research their profession or are they corporate members
who sign-up for a company paid night-out?  Clearly the active members of
the CIPS-L are not in that category, but how many of our fellow members
does that apply to?
<snip> >

>List Function Options discussed > >**************************************
> >1) Continue wide open list
> >
> No way!
>
> >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).
> >
Most of the lists I belong to have evolved a policy of only allowing
postings from list subscribers.  List policy and obvious netiquette is
explained in the subscription confirmation as well as the location of the
FAQ.  If we adopted this policy, no unwelcome poster could plead
ignorance and spammers would at least have to subscribe first affording
us, to some extent, an audit trail.

Cheers
+-----------------------------------+
Michael A.P. Hill
cipsnews@leroy.cc.uregina.ca

Ignorance never settles a question
+-----------------------------------+