Sorry, Ken. I was indeed thinking that I could help, in terms of mental outlook; but again you have taken it personally. Okay, I can deal with that. What Marc seems to be referring to is "poisoning" of a mail filter, which I am now a perfect example of, in your own filters. Choose your poison wisely = ) Stop listening, and the world won't stop turning. You simply won't hear my "poison", which seems to be a happy situation for you. To the list: sorry to get off-base. I'm interested in the TOPIC of this thread; I don't know anything about CPSR (tho I think I've heard of them), but also think that EFF might be a good resource for pursuing this issue; they are *very* against censorship in any form, including blocking advertisements on public networks (with the idea being, as I understand it, that it is an individual's right to choose what to censor, personally -- censor your own content consumption, if you like).
The initial point I tried to make in this thread, is that people have opted into how they use SpamAssasin, right? I'm not sure of the EFN setup, so need some clarification. So, everyone gets it, but everyone can have a personal configuration for spam-filtering, yes? So in this case, as in many other spam-filtering setups, it would be wise to KEEP any messages that the mail robot decides are spam. No matter how good, in our day an age there is NO sure-fire way to filter spam with 100% accuracy -- although many vendors of big-money filters would like you to believe otherwise. In regards to the america.edu htmlmail.htm page, I see. I consider the masses to be actively evolving the standards, which unfortunately is now massively bent by Microsoft, MSN/Hotmail, and Yahoo. The RFC 1855 is from 1995, and could use updating if it is to be referenced by "modern" computing users and enthusiasts: Not *that* many people even know what IRC or a MUD is! Look around; there are many places where one can only get web access, not terminal access. Even EFN is moving away from shell accounts. My own preference, for those who feel they "need" to use HTML in email is to have the message body be text, with an HTML attachment that shows their desired formatting, etc. <SCRIPT> tags shouldn't be needed, and many mail systems will strip them out or mark such a message as spam. Well, I'm just this guy, ya know... a human with my own issues, both personally and with the world at large. It pleases me to hope that our readership will keep this in mind when considering the points of any postings to our list (or other content). I'm not an expert simply because I'm "in the industry", or because I have spoken to our state government about technology, or because I have been on this list for years. I'm just this guy, ya know... (Zaphod Beeblebrox reference). Well have a fun day, and please do take enjoyment in practicing the freedom to NOT hear what you don't care to, and especially for continuing to, er, fight for the freedoms we are supposed to represent! Plug your ears, and wave your arms wildly = ) Many regards, truly, Ben PS - I can go through our archives and find a very highly count of "offenses" against RFC 1855, if that would prove anything... ie, that we don't like the "standard"! PPS - I sure enjoy this age of computing, with all its complexities and double-standards. I've heard tell that intelligence is truly the ability to deal with contrary situations. Yeah, I finished reading _Diamond Age_ by Neal Stephenson -- a *fabulous* book! On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:31:23 -0800 Ken Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Monday 10 November 2003 19:01, Ben Barrett wrote: | > Funny how people feel "savvy" by using modern technology! | > Plaintext obviously doesn't meet the requirements of most | > marketing campaigns. When you're autonomously defining such | > "standards", it is hard for the rest of the world to take a cue | > from YOU = 0 | | Ben, | | Your insults and condescending attitude are neither amusing nor | appropriate. Neither are they welcome. | | For the record, I am certainly NOT "autonomously defining" a | standard. It's been an unwritten rule in cyberspace from the | beginning that HTML-formatted email is considered rude. As an | example, I might point you to the following site: | | http://www.american.edu/cas/econ/htmlmail.htm | | Wherein the author states, among other things, that " Dislike of | HTML email is so wide-spread and the drawbacks of HTML email are | so well-known that it may seem surprising that there is no RFC | addressing it directly.... Nevertheless, RFC 1855 ... clearly | presumes that plain text is the standard for email." | | > In fact, almost all (gui) email clients *will* | > receive and display HTML emails -- some even do nifty things | > like cleaning up the HTML, removing script code segments, | > etc... so it seems to me that HTML email is indeed a standard. | | This is the same logic that would make M$ products, with their | notorious violation of standards, a "standard." | | Just because something is popular does not make it a standard. | | > out there, and if you want to, uh, say, get a job, there is a | > certain amount of conforming to *others'* standards that you | > might encounter, dare I say... | | Personal attacks are NOT appropriate here or on any other forum. | This is the second time in a year that you have publicly insulted | my intelligence on a mailing list, and I'm not going to put up | with it any more. From now on, your name will be a permanent | part of my filter. If you wish to discuss this further -- IN | PRIVATE, please -- I'm sure you can figure out how to get hold of | me by other means. | | Ken Ken -- you don't see this, do you? Does being "a permanent part of" your filter mean that I show up at the top of your inbox? Does it mean messages from me are deleted before read? Do I get my own folder? Should I change my identity, to remain "free"?? Bah! Gah! Harumph. _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
