dee3 clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery stuff. I
dee3 suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher
dee3 priority.
dcrocker an excellent goal. how can we objectively differentiate the
dcrocker one from the other?
Fleming Simply moving away from the IPv4
At 10:07 AM 7/22/2001, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery
stuff. I suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher
priority.
an excellent goal. how can we objectively differentiate the one from the
other?
d/
--
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam
At 10:07 AM 7/22/2001, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
clearly 99.9% of spam is worse
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
- Original Message -
From: Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam
*
* Now if I could just automagically create the content... hmmm
At 07:20 PM 7/20/2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
hi. we're not talking about a mail list so the issue of opt-in/out is
meaningless.
the fact that addressees are derived incrementally, rather than causing a
mass mailing strikes me as a minor point. The mass aspects of spam are
irritating, but
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
the fact that addressees are derived incrementally, rather than causing a
mass mailing strikes me as a minor point. The mass aspects of spam are
irritating, but not what causes the bulk of public concern.
Spam is most typically defined as
Under the current description that I have seen, this email is in fact SPAM
because you are not expecting it.
Oh! Shoot!
so I receive LOTS of SPAM daily!
Saludos.
Regards..
_
José Manuel Arronte García
Supervisor de Soporte Técnico Helpdesk
Meg@Red
Message -
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 11:02
Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Conner)
Hi folks,
I guess it is time to come out of the shadows. As many of you know,
Network Sorcery maintains
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 03:06:53PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
At 09:48 AM 7/20/2001 -0700, Steve Conner wrote:
It would certainly make my life easier if the IETF would provide a
directory that the authors could update themselves. I have volunteered in
the past to share this info with
From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
vern - as much as i appreciate the modern dictum that everyone is a
villain, i don't think it would kill you every now and then to look for a
benign explanation to things.
Spam is not about villainy, fraud, or public services. It is only
about
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 02:16:46PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What would you say if many of the many third party RFC repositories
started sending you periodic reminders to update your biographical and
bibliographical entries? So far it seems that
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 13:16
Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam
From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
vern - as much as i appreciate the modern dictum that everyone is a
villain, i don't think it would kill you every now and then to look
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
PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:43:24 -0700
From: Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gary E. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam
This is an automated reply from Marshall Rose's personal
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
From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
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?
What is real spam? How can I tell when I
*Steps out on proverbial limb*
Under the current description that I have seen, this email is in fact SPAM
because you are not expecting it.
I personally did not receive this message, and have been on the IETF list
for awhile, without participating much.
Guess you could call me a lurker...
Under the current description that I have seen, this email is
in fact SPAM because you are not expecting it.
Oh my, have we come a long way. I receive mail that I am not expecting
everyday, and I would definitely not qualify all of that as spam.
Lighten up! What do you want, a system in which
I think that networksorcery.com is sending a bulk message to RFC authors
soliciting updates for their version of a Who's Who. When I asked why
their message was not unsolicited bulk mail or spam they said
that the info request was sent to [me] and only [me].
Golly gee. Let me try to think if
20 matches
Mail list logo
