On Friday 07 January 2005 10:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem with spam filtering is that it's always a matter of
trade-offs. If there is too much spam then when deleting all the spam you
will accidentally delete some
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:37PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
There is some minor inconvenience to sender when a message is rejected due to
the spamcop DNSBL, but that falls into one of two categories:
You forgot one:
3) Some wants to damage the ISP and sends faked mails.
Bastian
--
On Jan 07, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Some wants to damage the ISP and sends faked mails.
I have never seen a joe job resulting in a listing by a reputable DNSBL.
Did you?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:51:58 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Jan 07, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Some wants to damage the ISP and sends faked mails.
I have never seen a joe job resulting in a listing by a reputable DNSBL.
In that logic, Spamcop is not a reputable
On Jan 08, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:51:58 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Jan 07, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Some wants to damage the ISP and sends faked mails.
I have never seen a joe job resulting in a listing by a reputable
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 03:34, Darren Salt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I demand that Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo may or may not have written...
El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribió:
[snip]
Human lives are much more important than email. The discussion is over.
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 15:13, Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, it's clear that trying to discuss thing swith you is a pointless
excercise in frustration, so I guess it doesn't matter one way or
another if you stop; hopefully others can continue the discussion in a
more
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If Thomas is capable of making a point without reference to the Bush regeime
then there might be a possibility of doing so.
I already did, but you ignored it.
You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
that they are the only
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is of course another reason to avoid analogies such as the one Thomas
used. A discussion about whether the US army is good or bad is not on topic
for this list and has nothing to do with spamcop.
Of course, I didn't discuss whether the US army
On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
that they are the only way to get the good goals you desire.
The problem with spam filtering is that it's
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
that they are the only way to get the good goals you desire.
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If spamcop was as bad as people claim then I'm sure that throughout
this discussion people would be CCing me on their messages to the
list and then flaming me on the list when my server rejected their
email due to the Spamcop DNSBL. I conclude that the
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 03:31:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was just following your line of reasoning:
You cannot justify the bad things that happen as a result of your
actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached without such
Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The worst case costs of well-implemented graylisting should be
something like a short delay in an email message; the worst case of a
false positive rejection can be much much worse indeed.
The worst case for graylisting is the same as a false
On Friday 31 December 2004 06:22, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:43:32 +1100, Russell Coker
Everyone who has a legitimate cause to send me email
knows to use English.
Your arrogance is remarkable.
Why is it arrogant?
If you see anything I have written then it
On Sunday 02 January 2005 18:32, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Way OT, but what the heck. If you must, flame me privately:]
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is this, you go to war with
I demand that Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo may or may not have written...
El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribió:
[snip]
Human lives are much more important than email. The discussion is over.
Of course, but in each field, a bad equipped army is as bad as a bad
equipped
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Save for the fact that it was Rumsfeld who said this, not Bush or bin
Laden:
It's the same thing.
References to Goebbels will invoke Godwin's law...
But I didn't reference Goebbel's or Hitler. You seem to have a
serious problem with reality
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 07:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Save for the fact that it was Rumsfeld who said this, not Bush or bin
Laden:
It's the same thing.
References to Goebbels will invoke Godwin's law...
But I
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you have any serious point to make then it can be made without
reference to such people. However all your messages recently have
been ad-hominem attacks, trying to compare me to Rumsfeld and now
claiming that I have a problem with reality.
Um, no.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:36:45AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
If you have any serious point to make then it can be made without reference
to
such people. However all your messages recently have been ad-hominem
attacks, trying to compare me to Rumsfeld and now claiming that I have a
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What is this, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you
want?
Consider the full context of the quote[0], yes.
[0]
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html
On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
the deaths of hundreds
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 03:25:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 09:17:43AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
the deaths of
El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribi:
On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is true whether the
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have
some false positives.
What is this, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you
want?
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have
some false positives.
What is this, you go to war
[Way OT, but what the heck. If you must, flame me privately:]
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is this, you go to war with the army you have, not the army
you want?
Coker's law: As a
On Sunday 02 January 2005 18:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 08:03:48PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions of a
scumbag (I am being nice) who deliberately caused the needless deaths of
hundreds of people from his own country with typical actions of a Unix
On Sunday 02 January 2005 20:19, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 08:03:48PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions
of a scumbag (I am being nice) who deliberately caused the needless
deaths of
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions of a
scumbag (I am being nice) who deliberately caused the needless deaths of
hundreds of people from his own country with typical actions of a Unix
administrator (which do not
On 2 Jan 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
My point was that you cannot justify the bad things that happen as a
result of your actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached
without such bad things happening.
However, the same could be said about the result of our *inactions*.
When bad
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
wasn't comparing false positives to deaths.
I was explaining why your style of
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, implementing greylisting in master would be bad for you,
because you demand that mail is transmitted without any delay at all.
When have I ever made such a demand?
Thomas
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
wasn't comparing false positives
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 09:17:43AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
wasn't
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 09:17:43AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
wasn't
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, implementing greylisting in master would be bad for you,
because you demand that mail is transmitted without any delay at all.
When have I ever made such a demand?
I was just following
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was just following your line of reasoning:
You cannot justify the bad things that happen as a result of your
actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached without such bad
things happening, where:
action = greylisting
bad things that
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have some
false positives.
What is this, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you
want?
Thomas
paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In which case, is there something fundamentally broken about the spamcop
system ? Or is there some technically insoluble problem here ?
It seems to be more that they just don't really give a crap:
(1) they trust users, (2) users are stupid, and (3) there's no
43 matches
Mail list logo
