>One of our board members - John Gillmore - (If you've heard of the >"alt" news groups - John started alt and is one of the founders of >EFF.) -
>John says: >Our stated policy is that antispam measures' first goal should be to >deliver every non-spam message to its destination. Which is exactly what Razor does. In fact, Razor delivers EVERY piece of mail filtered through it, ham and spam. There is no way, not even a configuration option, to make Razor delete, not deliver, or otherwise any piece of mail. Now, that does not mean that some users/system administrators do not automatically delete everything that Razor flags, but that is hardly Razors problem. If you are upset that Razor flagged emails are getting automatically deleted, then I suggest you find the name of the ISP's/individuals who are auto-deleting and take this up with them. >A particular >ramification of that is that if 26,000 EFFector subscribers ASKED to >get a message, and three did not, then delivery to that 26,000 should >NEVER be interrupted or blocked. I.e. the same message can be "spam" >to one person, and a desired communication to another. A blocking >measure which cannot tell WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR RECIPIENT >whether a message is "spam" or "desired" should never block it. Again, see above. Razor does not 'block' anything. If the email flagged by razor is getting blocked it is because someone has decided that they don't want to see anything that Razor flags. It is 'their' choice. And since Marc seems to want to throw around buzz words like censorship all the time, here is one for you, how about my freedom to decide that I want all Razor flagged emails to be auto-deleted? Surely you wouldn't disallow me the right to decide what mail I want to read or not to read. >Here's that micro-management demand from: Adam Goryachev: > >> I therefore formally request that the EFF show the public verifiable > >> evidence of each and every member of their newsletter having > >> requested to be on their mailing list. If you can't demonstrate that > >> EFF has verified every subscription address then the fault is with > >> the EFF and it should be blacklisted by anyone and everyone, and the > >> EFF is irresponsible. I am not interested in guesses and theories > >> that they "might" have subscribed themselves because they entered > >> some public knowledge data. I want to see the evidence. >I suggest that our response to this particular demand should be a hearty "fuck you". If indeed John you are responding in this manner, and I do agree that the request is outlandish and impractical, then a hearty "fuck you" right back at you. This is seeming more and more like the gestapo bullshit that I thought the EFF was established to stop. Your list management sucks, and if you are unwilling to meet halfway and fix your crap why should anyone here care to help you? To the list: I have tried to get Marc to send me a copy of EFFector but he seems to refuse. I wanted to see what the cf rating was on it. I don't believe this is an unreasonable request, and as often as he mails the list I am sure he has more than enough time and the capability to send it out. Though I am curious, I haven't seen Jordan or Vipul respond in any way to this issue. Does anyone know where they stand? Thanks. -- Jason Borgmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
