On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:52:24AM +1000, Matthew Palmer scribbled: > > > And, naturally, you have hard numbers to back up your claim, for situations > > > analogous to the Debian mailing lists. Because it would be terrible to make > > > sweeping statements like that with no evidence. > > > > You see, I _would_ have numbers if DSPAM ran on the d.o lists. I don't feel > > like subscribing to all of them personally and testing that myself. But, as > > You could subscribe to a few of the biggies and run it like it was on > murphy. I am subscribed to quite a few of them, thanks. > > unsupported my statement might be, yours is the same - you haven't tested it > > Statements I made: > > * "you have hard numbers to back up your claim" -- sarcasm, which you > recognised. I was making a very educated (and, as it turns out) entirely > accurate statement. No evidence required. You certainly have a high opinion about yourself, I find it really amusing :) > * "it would be terrible to make sweeping statements ... with no evidence" -- > might require some proof, but I think it stands fairly well on it's own, and > as a basis of scientific endeavour. If you'd really like a detailed > treatise on why crapping on with no evidence isn't a good thing, please take > a first year science course at college and try it. Academics are much > better at that sort of rant than me. You are rich, really :). Now you're speaking like you knew me for years. You are making a ton of assumptions and statements about my, whereas you don't know me at all. How about that, sugar pops? Shouldn't you listen to your words now? > > either. So, the solution would be to actually give it a try (and yes, I'd > > love to take part in configuring it for a test on l.d.o, but I doubt I would > > get access to the lists config, so that point is moot) and see how bad/good > > Have you asked? You'd be *amazed* at what you can do when you ask. You'd be *amazed* how futile it might be around here. I just admitted that I'm not a person anybody would trust with that matter - because practically nobody around here knows me. I maintain few packages and keep low profile, by choice and for reasons that are none of your business and I _realistically_ evaluate my chances of getting involved in anything else than what I'm doing for Debian now. They are moot, that's the fact. > > it works for debian. It doesn't even have to run on l.d.o itself, the mail > > could be reflected to a relatively idle machine to do the testing. > > That's going to be the hard part - finding a fairly idle machine in the > Debian pool... Did I say Debian? I didn't notice that, you're reading between the lines (and in my mind) again. My thought was to configure one of the machines I have access to for that purpose. have fun, kid marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature