Peter. As I stated earlier, there is no intention to blame anyone. My intention is to solve issues, if people of authority would want to, of course. Again, that statement, of my second paragraph, is not to insult people of authority for a supposed lack of desire to solve this isssue, but to state that I realize that I am not an authority; therefore, it depends on people of authority, obviously. I am as literate as possible. I am not fond of parables, slang, or otherwise poetic terminology, because such figures of speech are vague, subject to too many of possible interpretations, and generally a waste of time. On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 07:35:28 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
On 10/14/26 2:06 AM, Schimon via Standards wrote:
With respect, I do not realize why the moderators of this mailing-list allow these unwanted messages of "Aluminum Cable Market Enables Power Transmission".
There is essentially one moderator for all the mailing lists: me. I don't intentionally "allow" spam messages through, because I don't moderate all messages manually - that would be a ridiculous policy.
I realize it; however, this appears to be as an unusual lack of presence, for whatever reason; otherwise, it seems of a deliberate negligence. Again, I use the word "apparent", and I do not blame you or anyone else. Further, as I already stated, it be good to have more people involved in this process of moderation, if required; and, indeed, to me, it sems that it is required.
We already require subscriptions to the list in order to post, but we could further change the policy to be "confirm then moderate" so that the list moderator needs to manually approve all subscriptions. But that could introduce unwanted side-effects and delays, because how does the list moderator know which email addresses are nice people who want to discuss technical issues, and which are spammers?
Yes. I realize this concern. I do not have an opinion of it, as I am not well familiar with that concern.
We receive spam messages only rarely (perhaps a few times a year?), and when they do appear I immediately ban the sender so that they will not send multiple messages. Spam is simply a price we pay for online communications, and sometimes we all need to simply hit "delete" on an unwanted message.
I agree. I realize it. I already wrote criticism about lack of activity (that obvious rarity), in this mailing-list thread, which I shall not repeat, as it is unnecessary and unrelated. I only mention this, for record.
The most useful mailing-list "general" was closed for no proper reason; then, mailing-list "jdev" was closed for an improper reason; now, unwanted messages are allowed to be sent to the only mailing-list left.
We - *I*- shut down the jdev and juser lists because they were basically unused and because we have long been planning to disable all email functionality at the jabber.org domain (which is not an XSF domain anyway).
I disagree. I was an active poster, and so were others. Interestingly, that instance prompted me to implement the proposed concerns which I was asking about; so, Falkon internet browser now has a bookmark synchronization system which is based upon XMPP PubSub. Disabling any form of communication which is based upon storage (i.e. publishing) is bad. Messages appear, and only stored in logs, of entities which were present during sending of messages; therefore, a form of storage-based communication (e.g. forum, mailing-list) is critical for this project. Messages are messages. Posts are posts. These are different, and serve different purposes.
Is there an intention to further discourage more people from utilizing Jabber/XMPP, and foisting them into centralized messaging and publishing platforms?
Where I am from, if a professional is overwhelmed by tasks (that is, accepts too much of clients), then it amounts to conflict-of-interest; therefore, I advise to unqualified members, who can not handle their responsibilities, to leave XSF; otherwise, I would advise to reorganize XSF.
These statements are not worthy of further discussion.
I disagree. My statements were most moderated and subtle as possible, and the overall behaviours, reactions, and unanswered questions, in years and years, raise many concerns that amount to a need to audit XSF for that impossible continuous failure of XMPP of twenty years, which obviously requires effors to achieve; therefore, it appears, to me, and to others as well, that XSF might be more infected by a controlled opposition behaviour than an opposition control behaviour, whoever those responsible elements might be, be them internal or external to XSF. With respect, I know you since I was 17 years old, and I have great respect for you ever since. Needless to state, that you were also one of the most influencial figures to influence me to be involved with XMPP. Therefore, I am extremely cautious to challenge people who are older than myself, even older by a single day; and, this is a fundamental principle which is engraved in our blood, of Iraqi people. However, I would strongly advise you not to attempt nor try to intensify feelings by imitating my statement in supposed support of another one to which message I wrote a similar statement. I had a good and absolutely legitimate reason, by the supposed principles of XSF itself, to write that statement of my last message. Again, I advise not to intervene with possible conflicts that are not of yours, nevermind if it is a member of your organization or not. My supposed "unrelated" remarks were related indeed to amount years of concerns; yet, it appears that some of the posters, here, think to abuse unrelated remarks, of their own, to further this discussion to unrelated arenas. To repeat, to the readers, this discussion is ONLY about moderating of mailing-list messages, not otherwise. Schimon