Re: Every spam is sacred
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:28:46 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> said:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Santiago Vila:
>>> BTW, we are not talking about mailing lists.
>> That makes it worse, if mail targeted at me is blocked.
> We are also NOT talking about BLOCKING.
> *Sigh*.
rx1 It appears either you can not read, or you have a short
memory. Allow me to refresh it:
======================================================================
From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
Subject: Every spam is sacred
Message-ID: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.56.0306120118450.22424@home.unex.es>
...
How will we be able to discuss about DNS Blocking Lists in an objective
way if they continue to put all the DNSBLs in the same bag? How can
they say "no" to using some of them in /warn mode without (apparently)
even having informed themselves about the way SBL and DSBL operate?
...
Even if using SBL and DSBL would produce false positives (we could
easily check this by using the /warn mode during a week or two), there
is still a question that we should ask ourselves: How many avoided
spam messages are required to match the value of one "false positive"?
One thousand? One million?
======================================================================
manoj
--
Il brilgue: les t^oves libricilleux Se gyrent et frillant dans le
guave, Enm^im'es sont les gougebosquex, Et le m^omerade
horgrave. Es brilig war. Die schlichte Toven Wirrten und wimmelten
in Waben; Und aller-mumsige Burggoven Dir mohmen Rath ausgraben. Lewis
Carrol, "Through the Looking Glass"
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: