Re: Every spam is sacred
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:58:47 +0200 (CEST), Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> said:
> Yes, collateral damage is evil, but spam is evil too. You should not
> be surprised that many people choose what they think is the least of
> two evils.
I contend one need not make a choice; and one may stand on
refusing to accept even them lesser evil.
> To me, *that* is unacceptable, but fortunately there is a
> recipients_reject_except variable in exim. Assuming you will not ask
> to be taken out of this variable, do you have anything against me
> not being in it? Or are you so anti-DSBL that you believe I should
> be *forced* to receive and handle so much crap?
As I have said before, as long as the default is to not cause
data loss for everyone (since dropping emails may cause data loss),
but allow people to opt in to have their mail filtered, I would have
no objection. Opt in filtering is fine, and what other people do
with their email is certainly no business of mine.
I would not mind email being tagged (since that adds, rather
than deletes, data).
manoj
--
Children aren't happy without something to ignore, And that's what
parents were created for. Ogden Nash
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: