On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 02:03:10AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I'm not going to change my practices for your sake, so if you ever need a > private reply from me regarding something, you'll just have to cope with > the consequences. I respect the right of individuals to /dev/null my mails > for any reason they choose, be it the content, the originating IP address, > or what-have-you. But I will not aid you in your endeavor to pretend these > blacklists cause no collateral damage by trashing non-spam mails addressed > to third parties who have no control over their (ISP's) mail server's > configuration. > > The attitude of reckless blacklisters like yourself reminds me of the old > saw about how to be a corrupt scientist: "If the data don't fit the curve, > fake it." > > I will not be pushed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. > > And I most certainly will not voluntarily hand over my outbound emails to > the tender mercies of my monopolistic ISP's mail hub. > > If they want to collate and scan my mails, they'll just have to do it the > good old-fashioned underhanded way, which is sure to be blessed soon by the > Fascist laws of my contry if it hasn't been already. > > The least they can do in the process is drop the pretense and intercept my > outbound mails entirely, retransmitting them from one of your beloved > non-blacklisted bureaucratic addresses. > > Until that day, I will maintain responsibility for my own SMTP > transactions. I fully agree. On the flip side, I pay enough for a virtual Linux server hosted on a spam-free network so that I have somewhere to run that SMTP server that most of the world will still talk to, because I do, in fact, care that it gets through. It is, in fact, not as much as one would think, but I will refrain from flogging the service on a public list (if anyone wants to know, I'm happy to answer privately, of course). And I use RBLs on my inbound email, but only as a weighted advisory (IE, SpamAssassin with RBL checks enabled). Because by damn if DULs don't provide a strong heuristic for spam detection - especially since the few folks who send from such that I care about hearing tend to write messages that are easily flagged as non-spam based on content. -- Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`. Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' http://nienna.lightbearer.com/ `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature