Also sprach David Fokkema (Fri 01 Aug 02003 at 10:06:42PM +0200): > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:30:58PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:30 -0700, Alan Connor <alanconnor@earthlink.net> said: > > > > > If any mail comes to me from an email address or domain that isn't > > > on my pass list, it goes to /dev/null and an auto-response is sent > > > to whatever return address the sender supplied. > > > > > It asks them to re-send the mail including a password on the subject > > > line and insists that they use it with the same address used to > > > acquire it. > > > > > Obviously, if the address is invalid, they never get the reply. > > > > Hopefully, then, you don't need any answers I may send out > > privately, since I send all such resent requests to the bit > > bucket. _That_ is the problem with this approach -- you are actively > > deciding to forego any unexpected email coming from people who are > > not on your OK list. Participating on a public forum like this > > mailing list or USENET also exposes one to unexpected correspondence > > off channel -- and I have had conversation that I would not have > > liked to have missed. > > If you decide to go off channel and send a mail in private, why not just > reply to a resent request? At least with tmda (and I gather, also with > Alan's program) you are automatically added to the whitelist. _If_ you > decide to go off channel, you only have to reply _once_. As Richard > already said, why not just accept (or at least tolerate) both filtering > and C-R? The real question is, Why should I? To me, it's an awfully lot like an answering machine. If I call you on the telephone and I get your answering machine, then I must decide how important is what I have to say? How much effort am I willing to expend to say hello? Have you ever decided _not_ to leave a message, that what you had to say was just not that important? As if the Internet is not already too impersonal, now you're telling me -- with c-r -- that you do not know me, and you do not care to know me (nor what I have to say), *unless* I jump through your hoops. Perhaps, as in casual conversation, I quip to you about how snazzy your sneakers look and, by-the-by, where'd you get 'em? Since much of what we say, here and elsewhere, is not formal discourse, rather socializing banter, to be snubbed by an automaton is likely to rub me the wrong way -- it's almost certainly not worth the effort to jump through hoops for somebody who has already demonstrated his disrespect for me ;< How dare you ***ASSUME*** that I am spamming you! Who are you that I ought to feel compelled to jump through your hoops, simply to say -- in an email -- hello ?!?! Honestly, the further we go into this 21st century, the more I agree with John Gilmore. I do not want to provide identification to get on an airplane, much less when I send to you a casual email. -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . --
Attachment:
pgpAoTo8OawMr.pgp
Description: PGP signature