Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Santiago> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The answer is not to treat legitimate users like dirt, and
>> force them to use the subscribe address (my subscribe address is
>> never the address I post from).
Santiago> No, you could subscribe the address you post from to the
Santiago> "white list".
These are not constant, nor known to me a priori. I travel a lot.
Santiago> Unless you change ISP several times a week, this would not be a
Santiago> problem for you, Manoj.
I change ISP's several times a month, and, indeed, sometimes
use more than 2 a week.
Santiago> More to the point: When Bruce was the Project Leader, there
Santiago> was a procedure to validate every email address using
Santiago> cookies. You had only to answer the cookie once for every
Santiago> different From: you want to use. This procedure worked
Santiago> very well, it didn't require any moderators, it was 100%
Santiago> effective against spam, and it was never a big problem for
Santiago> legitimate users.
This pushes the burden on to innocent people; and that is what
I object to. I often am not rachable at the addresses I post from;
and hence can't answer cookies.
The youth of today and of those to come after them would assess the
work of the revolution in accordance with values of their own ... a
thousand years from now, all of them, even Marx, Engels, and Lenin,
would possibly appear rather ridiculous. -- Mao Tse-tung
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C