> Yo mtr! > > I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question > was opt-out. If you can not see the difference then we have big problems. > > I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from > under spam. It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this > list. Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world. hi. we're not talking about a "mail list" so the issue of "opt-in/out" is meaningless. all we have is this: a guy authors an rfc and gets an e-mail by someone maintaining a public database of rfc authors. there is only one thing that calling this "spam" achieves -- it reduces the impact of the term "spam". when a word means all things, it means nothing. let's keep the powder dry for "real" spam, shall we? /mtr
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Steve Conner
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Robert Moskowitz
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Michael Mealling
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Jon Crowcroft
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Vernon Schryver
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Marshall T. Rose
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Vernon Schryver
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Michael Mealling
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Marshall T. Rose
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Gary E. Miller
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Marshall T. Rose
- Re: networksorcery.com spam TRAICOVN (NW)
- Re: networksorcery.com sp... Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia
- Re: networksorcery.com sp... John Stracke
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: networksorcery.com sp... Dave Crocker
- Re: networksorcery.co... Jim Fleming
- Re: networksorcery.co... Paul Ebersman
- Keep on IPv4 address.... Jim Fleming
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Dave Crocker
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Vernon Schryver
