I generally agree with you - if you engage in discussion on the list, there
is no requirements that you talk to the same person offlist.
However for the benifits of this list's subscribers (and because this maillist
usually puts original poster's address in "cc:" and you end up sending
email reply both to them and to the list), I think you should let through
any email that is a reply to previous asrg email even if it comes directly
from subscriber to your emailbox (i'm afraid the only way to do it is by
subject and whitelist subjects that have [Asrg] in them), if you really do
not want to, then at least do not bounce these emails (/dev/null them if
you want)
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: Kee Hinckley <nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com>
Your reasoning would require removal of blocks against Cyberpromo and Alan
Ralsky's many domains should Spamford or Ralsky subscribe to this list.
Should they engage in the conversation of this list (as opposed to
sending spam), then I would say "yes".
How do I know whether Ralsky has subscribed? Whenever I subscribe to
a mailing list, do you say I should remove all spam defenses in case
Ralsky has already subscribed and wants to send some private non-spam?
Should every new subscriber to a list post an announcement so that
current subscribers can lower filters?
What if Ralsky subscribes, engages in the conversation of this list,
and continues to spam? As far as I can tell, your reasoning requires
that I permanently turn off my defenses against his spam so that he
can send me private mail related to the list. Perhaps you'll answer
that I'm only required to turn off my defenses from the time I subscribe
until his next spew. I wouldn't like that, because I think that I
should never turn off my defenses for the mere possibility of receiving
non-spam from him.
Whatever your reasoning really says instead of my guesses, it seems
awfully complicated. I think it all becomes simple, clear, predictable,
and even polite if subscribing to public mail grants permission only
to the list reflector, and that all other permissions and consents
remain unchanged. Sending private mail is almost always less polite
than silence. I think expecting strangers to listen to you or presuming
to take offense at having strangers slam doors in your face is more
rude than the door slamming.
The only bad thing of separating subscribing to mailing lists from
granting free-passes in spam filters is the shock and horror of people
who don't (or refuse to) realize how their own reputations or the
reputations of their employers preceed them. The shock, horror, and
anger of people who have discovered that their reputations are not what
they hoped is familiar, predictable, and understandable. Such is life.
Note again that I'm not saying that people should not send private,
polite, non-bulk mail to the public addresses of a stranger if they
reasonably believe that the stranger might be interested. If they
have reason to think otherwise (e.g. by virtue of sending from a widely
blacklisted domain name), they should not be surprised to meet a
slammed door. In any case, they have no standing to take offense at
a slammed door. Every stranger has the right to say "go away" to
anyone at any time without any explanation, and not be considered
"rude" or violating some sort of new superhypeway etiquette.
Consent to receive mail is always determined by the target!
This etiquette rule that requires listening to all private mail in order
to subscribe to a list is news to me, and I've been receiving email as
"vjs" since 1968, albeit not via SMTP until the last 20 years. Do the
filters on the main IETF list currently against at least one person
violate this new etiquette rule? What about the IETF-Censored list?
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg