Robert Klemme wrote:
> My stance is this: I do feel zero pain with regard to spam.  I checked 
> my GMail account and there are 6 emails in the last 30 days that I have 
> or the spam filter has marked spam.  I can easily ignore threads and the 
> bandwidth is only relevant for Google (btw, SMTP should make just one 
> copy of every mail to all GMail accounts subscribed travel the net).
> 
> Also, I do not consider recent traffic as spam: apparently there was 
> enough interest in the community to discuss this.  So even with 
> moderation enabled these messages would have made it into everybody's 
> inboxes.
> 
> On the contrary, moderation not only slows things down but it also has a 
> different effect: the community delegates maintaining a healthy biotope 
> to moderators.  I prefer the current solution where everybody is 
> responsible for balancing things out.  I think it has worked out 
> remarkably well in the last years and I do not really see a major 
> degradation.
> 
> I haven't see a compelling reason why we should have moderation now.  As 
> long as that has not changed I am strongly against moderation.

I vote with Robert Klemme for the above reasons.

By usenet standards (or really any Internet public discussion 
standards), the recent "spam" was a minor hiccup in the harmony of our 
little group. This episode doesn't seem to have reduced the overall 
civility of the group, so why worry?