On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:53:38PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > > > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages > > > in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed). > > > > I object to this and cannot comply with it. No developer can control > > their incoming mail. That's why it's called "incoming", as distinct > > from "outgoing", the mail which they control. > > > > This resolution would make every developer in violation of the DMUP > > for receiving spam. It is insane. > > This follows the convention of the statement it replaces: Existing insanity is not an excuse for further insanity. The DMUP is presently a joke anyway. > As with web pages incoming mail is generally encouraged to be of an Free > Software nature or related to the project somehow. > > As such, you could [mis]read the existing DMUP the way you have too, I can see no other way to read "Incoming mail is to be used only for [...]". The one single thing that it prohibits is a thing which the developer has no control over. It doesn't place any constraints on anything that the developer actually does have control over. > although the proposal is mandatory rather than 'generally encouraged'. IMO > this is negated by the phrase 'to be used[1]' anyway. If I print @d.o on a > business card I am 'using' the incoming mail service for the purpose of > receiving business related email, but if someone decides to send me > something unsolicited I am not 'using' the service as such. That's pure word play. It's a really bad idea to make up rules that don't mean what they say, or say what they mean. Also, you're trying to apply the DMUP to activities which do not involve using any Debian machines. [And it's still a stupid and impossible restriction to try to apply. I would ignore it completely] > The DMUP is a loosely written document in its current form. It also offers > 'examples of what we consider net abuse', which I don't believe should exist > in such a policy - rather, a concise list of what is permitted with all else > prohibited. The DMUP is a load of crap. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature