On Thursday 12 September 2002 12:46, David W. Tamkin wrote:
# Robin Lynn Frank wrote,
# | Oddly enough, this change of heart was inspired by David Tamkin. After
# | reading his post, I found myself just a bit annoyed that anyone would
# | complain about a computer's owner controlling what data when in to or out
of # | that computer.
# Ms. Frank misunderstood me. Of course people have every right to such
# control. That's the only reason we on this list use procmail (even those
of # us for whom the control is not based around spam rejection: throwing
mail into # folders is still exercise of control). The person who
/dev/nulls anything # from me may piss me off but is within her rights.
She's also within her # rights if she has an autoresponder that tells me
that she deletes mail from me # unread. I blacklist some addresses in my
own .procmailrc (without # autoresponding to them; these are, after all,
people whom I had asked to leave # me alone), and if any of them ever sends
me something vital, I'll miss out. #
# But people who use such controls also have the responsibility to carry them
# out; they are out of line when they dump the work onto someone else. A
# whitelister with a PYLM setup, especially if I'm replying to her message or
# her post, expects me to implement her selected controls for her and to do
her # filtering work for her. That is what frosts me about them.
# Ms. Frank says that people have the right to control their own data; I
agree, # but I add that the right carries the responsibility. Ever hear the
# expression, "If you want to call the tune, you have to pay the piper"?
PYLM # says, "you pay the piper to play my tune," and most PYLM texts add
insult to # injury by taking the stand that the sender is a damnable
# | If someone
# | wants to use an autoresponder to control incoming mail, that is their
# Some people think that generalizing the other person's stand into nonsense
# scores a victory. I never objected to all autoresponders as a class, as
Ms. # Frank is implying. There are some very good uses for them, and I have
two # running right now. (Neither, of course, is a PYLM.) Don't confuse
the vessel # with the content. I didn't.
I first read your post at about 6:30AM. It is now almost 10:30PM. The first
time I read it was before my first cup of coffee. I have now been working
long enough that coffee won't help. I'll concede I was painting with a broad
brush. Hell, I was half-blind at that hour (or this, for that matter).
Anyway, I will just say that we use an autoresponder in a way unlike most
folks. The auto response doesn't ask the sender to do anything. Instead ,
it tells them that there email address was not in our database and that there
email will be reviewed and they will be notified. Wheat happens then is that
someone actually looks at the incoming mail. If it is spam and has an
attribute we can configure our MTA to bounce, we do so. If it is valid, it
isrouted to the proper party and the sender gets a response from a real, live
person. If it is from someone we don't like, well, we may leave them
twisting in the wind for a few days before sending them a pseudo-bounce. I
won't go into the reasons we use this rather odd approach, but it isn't
obnoxious (a bit stern,perhaps).
Anyway, I've had it for today, I've had to correct so many typos in this
reply that I no I must be babbling, too, Thank you for changing the subject
line so I could reply without having to eat my own words.
Signing off for today.
Robin Lynn Frank
Notice: Incoming e-mail is subject to security
restrictions, including confirmation requests.
procmail mailing list