on Wed, Apr 10, 2002, Shawn McMahon (smcmahon@eiv.com) wrote:
> begin Karsten M. Self quotation:
> >
> > If you don't want to fink on your Uncle Louie, then filter separately.
>
> You have a filter that will accommodate every person you know now or
> may meet in the future, even if they don't have email yet?
I can accomodate new addresses rapidly. If they trip a filter, they're
doing something stupid. If they start off stupid, yes, they'll trip a
rule. If they don't, they're usually clear of them.
> > This rule applies only to list mails. By definition, such responses
> > are
>
> Not by legal definition, nor by the list's definition.
There is no effective legal definition of spam. It's what the recipient
says it is. I say this is spam. Not UCE, perhaps, but spam.
Autoresponder bots. See below for rule specificity.
> If some guy joins the list and sends an email that says:
>
> "Help, I can't get my Debian partition to boot, so I'm having to post
> this via Windows"
>
> ...and he forgets and sends it via ms-tnef format, he is NOT sending
> you unsolicited commercial email, and reporting that he did so is not
> only incorrect, but it might even constitute libel. You're accusing
> him of something that's unethical and in some places illegal, when in
> reality he did something that's stupid, but not unethical or illegal.
Not accusing. Reporting. You haven't seen my report letter ;-)
You're right -- the rule should filter to something more specific. It
needs an additional subject line qualifier. I'll think about that.
Suggestions welcomed.
I'm trying to make my tools both effective and specific. So improvement
is always an option.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act:
Feinstein's answer to Enron envy.
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html
Attachment:
pgp8UvDxR1neL.pgp
Description: PGP signature