Oh, please tell me you're not going to keep posting pointers to your
previous postings until everyone agrees with you.
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shelby Moore" <coolpage(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
[deleted down to ]
Before I respond to your continuance of your argument, I
*respectfully* remind that I already refuted the whole line of
criticism you are continuing in this post, when I rebutted your last
post in this thread:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22139.html
In case any one missed it,
[deleted down to]
No that is not the stated goal of this thread I started. I already
rebutted that whole link of criticism here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22139.html
Look for the section that starts with:
"Your point is that it is futile to define a protocol..."
And here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22129.html
[deleted down to]
The links to the previous posts are above which state that is not
our goal. You have been told that at least 2 or 3 times already.
[deleted down to ]
"pull"....rather than repeat my entire logic here, please read the
linked posts above in entirety.
[deleted down to]
And COVERT has nothing to do with my proposal as I've detailed ad
nauseum in the above linked posts.
[deleted down to ]
Again read the linked posts above more carefully. With a different
model of spam, we aren't stopping abuse, we are merely increasing
detection by having a better model of the signal.
[deleted down to]
This thread is not proposing that. See above.