In message <v04220806b49bfef7d559@[17.216.27.198]>,
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 11:18 AM -0800 1/7/2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> It isn't fraud.
>
>No, it's not -- but it is spamming...
Sorry no. It isn't that either.
Let's review shall we?
Spamming is the act of sending someone unsolicited e-mail.
If I sign _you_ up to one (or more) mailing lists... let's say ones that
are run by Egroups.Com... then I can do that without sending you any
e-mail at all. Thus, *I* have not spammed you. Later on, Egroups.Com
may send you some unsolicited e-mails, but that's THEIR responsibility,
don't cha think? DUH!
OK, chuq, since you may have trouble working that out, let's try a simpler
example... I ask a friend to shoot you in the head with his .45 Smith &
Wesson. My friend, helpful fellow that he is, complies with my request.
Guess who goes to jail for murder, me or my friend. Don't answer right
away. Take the afternoon to think about it if you need to.
>To be really blunt about it, if Ronald is willing to say it's okay
>for him to do this because he feels it's important to prove his
>point...
To be really blunt about it, I'm more than willing to _say_ that _I_
(or anyone else on the net for that matter) *may* at any moment, go
to www.egroups.com and subscribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to a
couple of zillion of the lists that are being run from that site.
And I am more than willing to have the people at egroups.com con-
template the amount of grief and difficulty they would cause for
our governor and his staff if this were to happen, and if the
governor's staff was then forced to go thru the tedious process of
manually UNSUBSCRIBING from all of those same zillion egroups.com
lists just in order to return the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailbox
to a usable state.
(You have no idea what a huge pain in the ass, and a huge time-sink
this sort of thing can be UNTIL you have had the mailbox that you use
for most of your normal business communications rendered useless by a
malicious `subscription bomb' or two.)
>At the very least, Ronald simply lowers himself to the same level as
>the spammers, which isn't my idea of a way to prove a point.
Correction: I *would* lower myself to that level, if I did indeed
go to www.groups.com and subscribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to a
bunch of their inadequately-secured lists. But it is my sincere hope
that it will not be necessary to provide that sort of demonstration of
the hazards of non-confirming lists in order for egroups.com, and
others, to fully appreciate these risks, and to take steps, immediately,
to reduce them.
Frankly, I don't actually see why you're even trying to generate an
argument here chuq... other than the fact that you like to argue. I
mean _you_ _do_ understand the value and importance of doing proper
subscription confirmations, and you _do_ already have that setup for
all of the lists that _you_ manage, correct?
(I'm just guessing that you've done this for all of your lists, because
once upon a time I _was_ forge-subscribed to some Apple list or another,
and my recollection was that that subscription _did_ require a conformation
from me... which I of course never sent... and thus the subscription just
harmlessly died of its own accord, without any additional effort on my
part.)
