Re: Every spam is sacred
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:17:41 +0200, Christian Surchi <csurchi@debian.org> said:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:45:53AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Spam is determined by the contents of the email, not by the factr
>> that someone in that IP block may have sopammed some one else at
>> some point in the mists of time.
> Mail from an old, abandoned and abused proxy (RBLed from months or
> years I mean), for example, is spam for me, even if I don't check
> content.
Then your idea of spam is very differnt from mine. You are
advocating that everyoine accept collateral damage as the norm --
treating mail from non spammers as spam merely because it comes from
a gateway whose policies you disapprove of.
This is certainly not the stance taken by all of us.
> Remember that there's a steganography method that "hides" message
> content in spam mails. Should we blame it if DDs like steganography?
Strawman. And a red herring.
manoj
--
It [marriage] happens as with cages: the birds without despair to get
in, and those within despair of getting out. Michel Eyquem de
Montaigne
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: