U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: "I'm protecting myself from receiving junk mail"

Re: "I'm protecting myself from receiving junk mail"

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: Re: "I'm protecting myself from receiving junk mail"
  • From: "John C." <johnjohnc@core.com>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:38:03 -0400
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • References: <49223.><20060725175453.85823.qmail@web56603.mail.re3.yahoo.com><50447.><E9E94D7A-6A0B-4CEA-8CFD-876213834E9B@comcast.net><Pine.NEB.4.63.0607281733440.13351@panix1.panix.com><a06020416c0f137b86637@[]><Pine.NEB.4.63.0608251345110.13100@panix3.panix.com>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

I second the motion.   I even answered his first email  request and should
have been taken off his blocked list yet still receive the annoying " I  am
only trying to protect myself  from junk messages"   I no longer reply of

John Cremati

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: "I'm protecting myself from receiving junk mail"

> Today I receved a 17 K message including 6 or 8 "gif" files, whatever they
> are (which for my telephone dialup system is LARGE) in response to some
> info I supplied onlist to answer a query about Pellet's process. This was
> from the kindness of my heart, because no one else seemed to answer, I had
> a tad of info on the topic, and we are after all here to share. But now I
> am directed to "click here" (which of course my terminal emulator on the
> unix shell doesn't do, and if it did I wouldn't anyway) to protect a
> person calling himself "John" from receiving junk mail.
> To put not too fine a point on it, I consider that response a greater
> affront than any "junk mail" I've received to date, and trust me, there
> has been plenty (tho I always follow up on the ones promising to enlarge
> my penis, and trust me-- HUGE!)
> But it seems to me that anyone who subscribes to this list, and is bright
> enough to benefit from its discourse, ought to be able to put mail from
> the listserv on its "accept" list and not ask folks who take the trouble
> to provide information (which I'm not at all certain "John" has done) to
> cater to his delicate sensibilities in ways that, besides being a damn
> nuisance, display a self-centered arrogance/ignorance I only cater to when
> there's something in it for a worthy cause, world improvement, or myself.
> To accede to this demand otherwise is simply to encourage a form of
> narcissism that IMO doesn't even benefit the narcissist.
> So I would respectfully suggest that other folks getting this message
> similarly refrain. And perhaps Gord would make a comment on this practice
> in his sign-up protocol. (Or I may have to fly to John's place on my
> broomstick and REALLY put a hex on him.)
> Meanwhile, FWIW, Panix has a generic spam filter signupable for on its
> website that's extremely effective -- I used to get more than 50 spams a
> day, but now rarely more than one or two.  But of course "John," delicate
> soul, in the act of "protecting himself" from dread junk mail, protects
> himself from this info too.
> love and kisses,
> Judy