Melvin (harrumph) Klassen said:
 
> Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion to "hide" filter-settings.
 
> As a list-owner, I have found it useful to examine the headers of lists
> which are *not* owned by me, and include some of their filters in my lists.
 
> For example, my "snooping" allowed my filters to block the latest "spam"
> from '*@*CYBER.SELL.COM'.
 
> I cast my vote 'for' the status-quo.
 
It is certainly useful to me to be able to look at the filters
that other list owners are using.  But I would cast my vote for
having the list owners able to make the choice.  I run lists for
10 to 15 year-old kids (part of KIDLINK).  We have had remarkably
few problems with inappropriate messages from kids.
 
Only once have I felt it necessary to use the filter mechanism to
block a child who was behaving inappropriately.  But I did feel
uncomfortable that I could not block the child without making it
public that I was blocking that child.  It would have been
helpful to me to be able to set that filter to be private.
 
This is no longer an issue for us.  KIDCAFE, our primary list for
the 10 to 15 kids, is now fully moderated with a team of kids who
review each message before it is posted.  But, in principle, I
support having the option for owners of making the filters
private.  We do have the conceal option to hide the identity of
individual subscribers.  It seems equally important to me to be
able to hide the identity of those individuals with whom we have
had trouble.
 
                          Peace,  Dan
 
<<  Daniel D. Wheeler          Internet:  [log in to unmask]  >>
<<  University of Cincinnati     Bitnet:  wheeler@ucbeh       >>