On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 01:36:17 -0400
Jim Youll <jim(_at_)media(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
At 22:27 -0700 4/8/03, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:13:28 -0400 Jim Youll
<jim(_at_)media(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
and yes there are many versions of sendmail in the wild, and many
non-sendmails as well. But still the character of this suggestions is
that of a change that can be made for private gain (internal bounces
lose weight) that also yield public benefits. it is in that
happy-space of individual incentive (even if slight) and public
welfare.
Fair dinkum. However this discussion of bounce contents is distractive,
unpurposed, and bears no relation to the purpose of this group. Bounces
have yet to be shown as either a current spam vector of appreciable
size, or a likely future vector.
How about a little self-control and topic policing? I know I'm no saint
there (glances guiltily toward his OutBox), but we can do better than
this.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg