----Security_Multipart(Fri_Mar_21_16:37:07_2003_603)--
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jason, thank you for your response. I think you're wrong.
One of the problems with your interpretation of my email is that you
somehow didn't realize I had a valid point about the misrepresentation
of the principles of Razor; the rest are just misled from that basis.
I'm sorry I responded to them already before prefacing my email with
this paragraph. The rest of this email is basically a (burning and
smoldering) response to your flame, and can be otherwise safely
skipped once the fundamental concept that Vipul, et al., failed to
disclose nondisclosure upfront resulting in a way that was
irresponsibly damaging is understood.
> Really? Sounds great. I would have thought that you could have
> gotten this kind of project off the ground in '18 years', if you
> have had this idea for so long how come you don't develop it rather
> than rag on the ones who have 'gotten off their proverbial asses'
> and given it a shot?
Sure; you can support me while I do it. Send me your money transfer
authorization. Otherwise, expecting me to not tell other people how
to do their job at serving me when they are trying to lie to me about
how they are serving me is illogical; their ineptness needs
responsibility. I can and will go elsewhere for my needs, and try to
get to perform these processes myself in the meanwhile, but at the
same time I have not been able to do everything and society does build
upon the works of others; the libertarian idea that no one is actually
dependent upon anyone else is simply false. And finally, I do
understand the need for income; see first paragraph of this email.
> And in case you have taken me the wrong way, I do like your idea,
> but it seems like you are trying to get someone else to do all the
> work for you. I would suggest getting a team together and write
> something up.
Well, I have wanted to many times in the past, but need resources to
subsist in the meanwhile. See first paragraph of this email.
> > I have a horrible suspicion that they're actually selling spamming
> > rights to various spammers for a high fee, so that they won't be
> > marked by this despamming software. How the hell could they prove
> > to us that they aren't, given their model?
>
> I'm pretty sure this has been over hashed already in this forum. The
> TeS system is closed, period.
It was never explained properly in the documentation. This is a major
omission from the documentation, and therefore it bears repeating in
the forum until documented.
> Jordan and Vipul owe us nothing
Not true. They owe us forthrightness about their making a closed
system not only in the way it is rated for specific servers, but that
the server code itself is not shared. Having to spend multiple days
only to find that it has not been published via omission rather than
forthrightness means that they owe me, and for that matter, you. This
concept that people can amble through the Internet without any
responsibility is wrong.
> They have been kind enough to share their work with us,
They were mean enough to; if they are going to misrepresent what it
is, they shouldn't bother "sharing" this incomplete piece. That's
like saying that a prisoner who got there by assaulting you was kind
enough to share the time and application of his human physical contact
with you while he was hitting you.
> it is their discretion as to which parts of that work the wish to
> share. As for your 'suspicion' that the razor team is selling
> immunity, get a life.
I have one; are you implying that I ought not respond to the
effectiveness of the program in the very forum set up to do so?
Furthermore, SpamAssassin, by association, has implied that Razor is
somehow useful; that by itself doesn't mean I should ignore it. It's
not as though I came looking for trouble, and nor does your saying
"get a life" to me have any real logical basis or foundation for
progress.
> If you don't like the effectiveness of the program go find something
> else. I would highly doubt that they are doing this, but if they
> are and you disagree with it, then leave, no one is making you use
> razor.
Of course (I intend to, in your words, ``leave'' (i.e., not
intercourse this particular set of electrons)), if the problems aren't
remedied, which I'm pretty much certain of). I'm surprised you didn't
understand that. Meanwhile, I've implemented it, and will have to
transition out of it, and am now more a user of it than before I knew
not to use it.
> I'm a big fan of open software, but I'm getting a little sick of the
> people who think every last line of code should be publicly
> available or outlawed.
Well, they did not take claim to it being a partially open piece of
software in its opening banner on the semiopen side; if it were
clearly stated in the homepage on SourceForge and all the introductory
documentation (including man pages, etc.) that this software is just a
client to a secret closed proprietary system, then I would not feel
that they owe us.
> Open source projects can and should work along side closed source
> projects. There are times and places where both are appropriate.
While I won't get into the correctness of your last sentence, I think
you are correct about the penultimate one: that they can and should
work alongside each other. This is one place where I don't think this
has been responsibly implemented.
P.S., I appreciate the sentiments of Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
who supported my concept that I can program this myself. He, too,
though, seems to be a bit more pressing on the issue; I am responding
to something that is, not that which can be; I am pointing out its
failures, not mine. We already know I have failed to program this to
date (to my memory; I've forgotten so many of my accomplishments, I
might have already done it.)
Headers repeated to be inside signature (date ~0-3min. early):
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:35:40 -0600
To: Jason Borgmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Brad Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Razor Mailing Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Razor-users] Razor success dependent on server collaboration
In-Reply-To: Message from Jason Borgmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
of "21 Mar 2003 15:12:19 CST."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
----Security_Multipart(Fri_Mar_21_16:37:07_2003_603)--
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)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=0/Bq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----Security_Multipart(Fri_Mar_21_16:37:07_2003_603)----
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open!
Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and
the chance of winning an Apple iPod:
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en
_______________________________________________
Razor-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
