On 8/10/06, Allan Poindexter <apoindex@aoc.nrao.edu> wrote:
Todd> There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of Todd> the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked.
So it is OK so long as we only defame a few people and potentially ruin their lives?
That's quite a stretch there, bub. "Defame" means that it is somehow misrepresented as true, factual information. Publicly accessible (and non-mandatory) blacklists are opinions, not portrayed as fact by any stretch of the imagination.
Todd> In the meantime my patience with email "lost" in the sea of Todd> spam not blocked by blacklists, etc. is growing thin.
Hmm. Let me think a minute. Nope not buying it.
If your inbound mail isn't at least 30% spam (or blocked spam attempts) these days, then you haven't been using the Internet long enough. I have better things to do than pass that 30% of mail traffic. The spam can FOAD as far as I care, and if there is a problem of a mistake with something improperly blocked, it is fixable (and takes a lot less maintenance time than dealing with the spam tsunami). Sorry, but those of us who have actually done this sort of thing for a living for a while know quite well why not every network can implement bayes-ish "Report Spam" button schemes (which are inaccurate anyhow, as you've pointed out), nor simply present all actual spam to the users (who would be flooded with well more than 30% in some cases -- there are in-use mailboxes on systems I've managed that would be above 99% spam if the spew weren't blocked at the gate). It's either lack of industry experience on your part, or you're yet another troll for a "list renter" or bulker -- which is it? Based on earlier statements of yours, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. However, you just had to pull out the "defame" word in a completely invalid grammatical and legal context, so I'm starting to hedge bets on the latter. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>