-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Guy
Sent: November 20, 2004 1:35 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) Article On Anti-Spam Technologies Mentions SPF
I recommend Dave Crocker for moderation for trolling.
And some of the more reasonable people on this list wonder why I, for
example, felt that dissident views were not hugely welcome.
Mr. Crocker is making, I think, a series of point that are on-topic and
whose validity seems worthy enough of being debated. If that's considered
trolling, then this list is going to turn into a case study in group think
where all participants simply reinforce each other's preconceived pro-SPF
views and every dissident, whether their arguments are valid or not (I must
admit that shortly before posting it today, I realized that one of my
scenarios supposed to demonstrate the potential negative effect of SPF in
the wrong hands turned out to have a very feasible workaround for the
affected end-user, so I'm not going to say all anti-SPF views, including
ones I may have articulated in the past, stand up to critical scrutiny),
will be intimidated and won't speak.
History books and newspapers are, I think, filled with examples of
situations where such attitudes got someone or some organization into deep
trouble. Sometimes it turns out that the lone dissident in the room did have
a valid point, and everybody else realized it far too late.
Vivien