Are the GCC lists intended to be open lists?

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Paul Koning wrote:

> It was my impression that the GCC mailing lists are intended to be
> open lists -- in other words, anyone can post without having to be a
> subscriber. 

They are intended to be open - the Mission Statement says so.  However
this I think refers more to the general principle that discussions should
be visible to the public, and able to be particitated in by the public
(unlike, as I understand, the old gcc2 list used for development before
EGCS), not to "mechanism" such as how people gain the ability to post.  
(Though requiring the posting address to be identical to an on-list
address would manifestly be unreasonable, requiring subscription to a
special -allow list in certain cases may make sense, providing all of (a)  
how to subscribe to the -allow list, (b) what address (From, envelope
sender, ...) needs to be subscribed to it, (c) in what circumstances
(particular RBLs used, etc.) such subscription is needed) are clearly
documented.)

At one point I think the @gnu.org addresses (bug-gcc@gnu.org, gcc@gnu.org)  
allowed through messages that would have been rejected if sent directly to
the @gcc.gnu.org addresses.  Does this still apply?  If so we could
document it for the benefit of those blocked by over-zealous RBLs.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk