Re: Every spam is sacred
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:48:51 -0400, Noah Meyerhans <email@example.com> said:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 06:24:46PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
>> I still don't think Debian should enforce a filtering policy on
>> developers e-mail address. It should really be done on an
>> individual basis.
> Why are people *still* refusing to recognize the fact that *nobody*
> has proposed server-side filtering of debian.org email! That is
> *not* what this discussion is about!
It appears either you can not read, or you have a short
memory. Allow me to refresh it; this is the mail that initiated this
discussion, and laid out the scope of the discussion:
From: Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Every spam is sacred
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?
He that we last as Thurn and Taxis knew Now recks no lord but the
stilletto's Thorn, And Tacit lies the gold once-knotted horn. No
hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow, Who's once been set his
tryst with Trystero. Richard Whorfinger, "The Courier's Tragedy"
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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