Re: fighting spam || avoiding spam
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:11:27PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Mathieu Roy <email@example.com> writes:
> >> Pascal Hakim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>> So a number of people who are opposed to mangling code and archive
> >>> names, and destroying the ability to check GPG signatures of messages in
> >>> the archives in the name of reducing spam have brought up a number of
> >>> points that must be taken care before we can consider doing it, and
> >>> that's the best you can come up with?
> >> Apparently you are only focused on finding issues in the proposal, not
> >> in improving it to make it feasible.
> > That's because he wants you to understand that your proposal isn't
> > suitable for our needs. There's no way to improve it - it's simply not a
> > solution.
> So you are happy to say that you do not give a toss about the user
> that reports bug and get spammed as result?
There's a mile of difference between "I don't care" and "I do care, but
your suggestion, which has been tried before, is proven to not work"
> Thanks you, I'll think twice before submitting a any new bug
> report. Maybe I'll use an invalid address
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
-- with thanks to fortune