On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 11:30 -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > * Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> [181203 23:57]: > > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:33 -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > > > Are you saying that because others have, in the past, resorted to > > > violence that it becomes justifiable? > > > > No, I'm saying lessons learned from History are to always be > > respected and not ignored. > > That's not what you wrote. Here it is: > > * Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> [181203 15:21]: > > How long should Dave wait out the problem before insulting folks? > > ====== > > [snip] At > > what point should constructive feedback yield to insults, and at > > what > > ====== > > point should insults yield to violence? > > ====== > > > > If your answer to that last question is "never", then I suggest you > > study some history. ;-) > > You asked "should", which is asking what is appropriate. History can > rarely be used to answer that question. And you should never respect > wrong historical choices (for the definition of "respect" meaning > "esteem"). If by "respect" you meant "keep in mind", that has > absolutely nothing to do with "should". You do a sweet copy+paste effort and totally ignored the trailing smiley, how interesting. > > * Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> [181203 23:57]: > > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:33 -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > > > Over an offer to help that was sent to the wrong place and was > > > thus not answered? > > > > Context, it's always important. The offerS have been given by > > several people, over several years, across several methods. > > What offers? I have seen very few offers from anyone, and I have been > subscribed to this list for a long time. Can you give a URL from the > archives at lists.debian.org? I doubt those offers are on the public list archives. Dave? The ones I made were here on-list yesterday, or via private email, or over on #debian and #postfix. > > I know Dave, I have a reasonable idea of how Dave would have make > > his first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth offers to > > help. I can also imagine that it probably took Dave at least > > several years, of offering *free* help, before he blew a gasket at > > the continuance of a problem that he is very keenly aware of how to > > solve. > > Searching this list's archive specifically for "horsfall", I get 57 > matches, 24 that are from him. Of those 24, this is the only other > one related to spam: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-laptop/2018/01/msg00001.html > I didn't know that spamming was allowed on this list; can I spam > too? > > That doesn't sound like a constructive offer to help. Your > "reasonable idea" of how he would make his first through sixth offers > to help does not match the evidence in the archive. Your unreasonable assumption falls short in believing that constructive offers must be made in public archives. > > I, on a parallel plane, have been advocating for improvements, and > > complaining about the spam problem, for several years now too. > > How about giving real help instead of complaining? I gave real help, and Dave is offering real help. Outside of Dave and me there are many others who can and (hopefully) have offered real help. The problem is real help isn't very welcomed. The status quo is comfortable with the way things are (it could be better, it could be worse). I offered real help yesterday (Enable DNSBLs in Spamassasin), and someone else offered rpsamd advice... are you holding your breath waiting for the listmasters to implement either of those? > > I'll make a prediction, nothing will improve and > > obvious spam will still leak through b.d.o. > > It appears that you have no idea how much spam is actually being > rejected compared to the very few that actually make it through. You > will never get both 0 false positives and 0 false negatives on any > sizeable mailing list. I run mailinglists that don't have that problem, and there are many other much bigger mailinglists that don't have the those issues. Across the board of technical mailing lists (NANOG, DNS Ops, MailOp, Bind, Outages) that I'm on, or have been on, it is only the Debian mailing lists that perpetually bleed spam. > Or perhaps you do have an idea, you just have an unrealistic > expectation that _zero_ spam getting through is easily attainable. I think you have a false impression of what the end goal should be , you seem too willing to accept some level of spam (status quo?). Zero spam *is* done by many other mailing list operators. > > > Sorry, that is just plain wrong. > > > > Which part? The part about context mattering? > > Huh? Your irrelevant and unsubstantiated remark about context was in > your reply to that message, not in the message to which that was a > reply. Talk about ignoring context! My comment was given precisely > in context, but I'll copy it here just to try to be clear: > > > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:33 -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > > > Are you saying that because others have, in the past, resorted to > > > violence that it becomes justifiable? > > > Over an offer to help that was sent to the wrong place and was > > > thus not answered? > > To rephrase that, your message gave a clear implication that history > was a justification for why "never" was not the correct answer to > "at what point should insults yield to violence?", and I was saying > that> "never" is, indeed, the correct answer to that question. "Never" is the *desired* answer but history has shown that violence is often necessary to bring about real change. Those two concepts are mutually exclusive. -Jim P.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part