I'm with Marshall here. Much as it would be nice if everything was
black and white (or one and zero), that's not the way the real world
of human communications is. The edge of the sharpest, straightest
razor blabe looks like a mountain range under a microscope. I can
understand why someone would think of this mail as spam, although I
didn't, but clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery
stuff. I suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher
priority.
Donald
From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <011b01c1116a$388720f0$8753cf3f@FATORA>
To: "Gary E. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marshall Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:20:38 -0700
>> 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
>
>
