Re: TMDA (was: new spam functionality added)

[Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>]

Scott A Crosby <scrosby@cs.rice.edu> writes:

> However, if you (purposely or inadvertently) *hide* the fact that you
> use TMDA. Then you're exploiting the fact that most people will
> respond out of a psychological need to not feel like they wasted their
> time. Many people will spend an extra 10 seconds to avoid having their
> email deleted unread (and thus wasting the results of several minutes
> work). 

It is still *their* choice.  I have no obligation to read any email
send to me.  By not using TMDA, I make it *my* choice, by
accidentially junking their messages.  By using TMDA, it become
*their* choice.  I do not care for what *their* reasons will be for
making *their* choice.

I no, I have no intension of munging my headers or signature in order
to accomodate the people who believe that their message is worth
several minuttes of their time to write, but not an additional 10
seconds to ensure it is read.  These people have a problem I refuse to
make mine, or force on third parties by munging headers.

This is similar to the current situation, where I do not publish my
blacklist rules, so people who write me will not know whether they
will be filtered.  

> These split-fancy rules attempt to detect an auto-reply.
> 	 ("X-Delivery-Agent" "TMDA" "junk.tmda")
> 	 ("Delivery-Agent" "TMDA" "junk.tmda")

This is reasonable.  This just put you in the same position like
someone from Taiwan who would write me today.  He would not be read,
because of my filters.  The difference is that you choose not to be
read deliberately, while the Taiwanese hardly had a choice of where to
be born.