Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces

At 9:47 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote:
> At 04:20 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote:
> > Sorry.  I don't buy it.  When you sign up for the list, you sign up 
> > for conversations with people on the list.
> This is manifestly false. You sign up for list traffic. There is 
> nothing whatever to require you to accept mail from any particular 
> individual on the list.
I'm sorry that you don't understand the social assumptions implicit 
in human conversation. However that does not excuse your anti-social 
behavior. I assume that if we were at a meeting, you would only talk 
to him while sitting at the table, but spit in his face if he tried 
to talk with you in the hallway?
> > I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that some people on this 
> > list might be here because they want to ensure that their companies 
> > *don't* spam?
> I consider employment with Verisign fundamentally incompatible with 
> honestly seeking a solution to spam in any event, since Verisign's 
> spam problem, like
Thank you for clarifying what I already believed.  You aren't 
interested in solving spam.  You're interested in retribution.
Of all the companies currently involved in this, and the related 
JamSpam discussions, Verisign is by no means the worst.  JamSpam is 
*hosted* by Topica.  Take a lesson from South Africa, Northern 
Ireland, Nicaragua and a few other political hot spots.  If you want 
to find a solution, you've got to put the past behind you.
Verisign is by no means my favorite company--even before they bought 
Network Solutions.  Ask Phillip what the first message I sent him 
off-list said.  (On second thought, don't ask him.  Sorry, I forgot, 
you can't.)  I wouldn't even say that Phillip is my favorite person 
on this list.  But I'm not going to let either of those things get in 
the way of our finding solutions to spam.  If you are, then I'd say 
you're betraying the trust of your organization.
> Furthermore, he consistently pushes as "the only solution", 
> something that would (if it were even a desirable approach or 
> possible to implement) generate more revenue for his employer. How 
> is this relevant? You suggested his motive for being here, but a 
> motive-based analysis would suggest that his interest is not in 
> stopping spam, but in generating revenue.
It would appear that your motive is "getting even."  I'd consider the 
motive of earning money for Verisign--even if true--potentially far 
more compatible with the goals of this list than yours.
Since you obviously don't give a damn as to whether Phillip has 
anything worthwhile to say--being blinded by the twelve letters to 
the left of his at-sign.  I suggest that in the future you restrict 
your messages to this list to ones that do *not* reply (directly or 
indirectly) to anything he posts to this list.  I see that you have 
continued to send him email throughout this discussion (see the To: 
and Cc: headers).  If nothing else, that's just plain rude.  If 
there's one thing I despise more than spammers, it's spam fighters 
who lash out at people while hiding behind barriers so that they 
don't have to read the response.  I know why the spammers do it, but 
you don't have an excuse.  S fighters should know better; and they 
certainly should be held to higher standards.  I'm sorry that you are 
so blind to the damage that you are doing to our cause.
And to anyone else still listening.  I will attempt to make this my 
last on-list posting on this subject.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg