Re: "I'm protecting myself from receiving junk mail"
----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy Seigel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: "I'm protecting myself from receiving junk mail"
I don't know what this person (John) has on his e-mail> 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
but spam blockers are pretty common these days. The spam
blocker at my ISP has three settings, off, known spam and
block any message from an address not in its address book. I
use the highest setting because a lot of stuff gets through
otherwise. If you write me you will get a message from the
spam blocker. You can return that and I get it and can
unblock you and retrieve the original message. It is a PITA
but it stops spam at about the same number as I get
legitimate messages, sometimes more. The "known spam" stops
about 1000 messages a week but does not filter the others.
I hate having to use this thing and welcome e-mail from
anyone interested in writing me _except_ the spammers,
phishers, and those offering me a Zillion dollars from their
Nigerian account in return for my bank routing numbers.
Nonetheless, the spam blocker message may seem to be
stand-off-ish or even rude but its the nature of life on the
internet that it seems to be necessary.
In order to unblock someone I have to have his/her e-mail address. That is not always practical for a mailing list. Both because of the number of subscribers and because the subscription list is often not made available except to the list administrators. For the Earthlink blocker (actually Brightmail) I get a message that someone wants to be unblocked and I can click on a web interface to read the blocked message and decide if its legitamate. I do this anyway a couple of times a day and often catch blocked messages before the sender has to send the blocker message. Another reason for having a message that has to be returned is that it stops stuff from robot senders, which, of course, don't return messages. I _have_ had spammers actually return the blocker message but the nature of their mail is obvious.
One bad part about the Brightmail system is that it has a bug which results in my own messages sent to mailing lists being blocked. No one at Earthlink has any clue about this.
In any case, perhaps you are being too hard on "John".
It is very bad nettiquette to send attachments without
permission. A lot of people have broad band connections and
just assume everyone else has too. I am also on a dial-up
and understand about getting multi-megabit image files sent
to me. We live in an age of bad manners and thoughtlessness.
A GIF is a type of image file.
Los Angeles, CA, USA