From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/45969 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Jason R. Mastaler" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: new spam functionality added Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:29:25 -0600 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <20020801222925.A10502@mastaler.com> References: <87y9brejam.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> <873ctztyth.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028262596 20828 127.0.0.1 (2 Aug 2002 04:29:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:29:56 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17aU4X-0005Ph-00 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 06:29:53 +0200 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 17aU4U-0001R8-00; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:29:50 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:30:17 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA13841 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:30:07 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 10874 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2002 04:29:34 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 10869 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2002 04:29:34 -0000 Original-Received: from localhost (HELO sclp3.sclp.com) (jason@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Aug 2002 04:29:34 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from rra@stanford.edu on Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:43:21PM -0700 X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.59 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:45969 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:45969 Russ Allbery writes: > It's refusal to jump through other people's hoops so that they can > receive my mail. Do you have the same objections to confirming a mailing list subscription? What's the difference? > Spam sucks. I deal with it. Other people can too. Misery loves company. > There are a lot of different tactics that can work. Work, yes, but not nearly well enough. Ibuprofen won't cut it; I need morphine. > If you can live with simply cutting off communication with people > like me as acceptable lossage in keeping away the spam, then more > power to you. No, that's certainly not acceptable. However, senders who won't confirm their messages merely out of spite are in the vast minority, so it's not really a problem. TMDA has ways around these situations anyway. > If you ever want to get mail from me, you'll write to me with a > repliable address; requiring confirmation renders the e-mail address > unrepliable as far as I'm concerned and I will treat it accordingly. Of course. Have you actually taken a look at TMDA, or are you just making assumptions here? With TMDA, I'll always write to you with a repliable address. This is one of the reasons another poster in this thread said that the majority of correspondents won't even notice it. I totally agree, doing otherwise would be extremely rude.