U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: The "Offended" re-replies....

RE: The "Offended" re-replies....


Without going into excruciatingly boring detail, using a PC spam filter
and/or ISP spam filter is an absolute must for Microsoft users. Trust me I
do everything I can to ward off dangerous e-mails. As obnoxious as
spamenators can be, they do have a legitimate purpose. 

And no we can't use the UNIX tools that you do (although there is a PC
version of Pine). For me personally I quit using Pine many many years ago
and never looked back.

Figuratively speaking, if Microsoft didn't have their head up their
collective hard drive they could solve this problem. In their defense they
do make security patches available frequently (and BTW there are tons of
security patches that are issued for UNIX systems as well.)

I am truly sorry that you don't engage the internet with a graphical user
interface or modern e-mail clients, you are missing a lot.

But back to the point, having your system corrupted by a worm or virus is a
life altering event for most of us these days. I have over 1,000,000 files
on my PC and trying to rebuild a corrupted system is usually impossible to
do quickly and safely. Re-installing and restoring is also a bummer and
usually means weeks of system rebuild and software re-installs. 

I can rebound from hardware failures with relative ease but virus infections
are non-sequiturs even for the most geeky of us, resulting in man weeks of
lost productivity and time.

So please don't take these defenses personally, they aren't intended that

Don Bryant

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:45 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: The "Offended" re-replies....

Dear all,

I kind of dreaded logging on today, expecting I'd be trashed. So A), glad 
I wasn't and B), sometimes stuff needs saying. But let me point out two 

1. In my opinion there's a matter of ethics involved. That is, to quote 
the ethicist for the ages, Emanual Kant, "Act so that the maxim of your 
action could be universal law."

In other words,  if every one of the subscribers to this list, all of whom 
must have a problem  with spam, whatever the size of their penii, used a 
"blocker" similar to John's, the list would be unusable. Which is to say, 
this kind of "blocker" on a list of this sort, needs to be the exception 
not the rule.  Kant would object, correctly IMO.

2. My system is crude, that is, dial up to a unix shell, writing in Pine, 
text only.

So I'm a Neanderthal, but AFAIK, this list doesn't have to be 
schizophrenic, that is, if we love old processes we DON'T have to do it 
with broadband. My digitons already torment me nigh unto death, I don't 
deal with them more  than absolutely essential  -- and I'm otherwise 
preoccupied at present.

BUT -- the Spam filter offered by Panix has been, as noted, very 
effective. Today, for instance, I had only one Spam (after, if memory 
serves, 2 days). I believe their website is reachable by the public.. (I'm 
not sure I could get there again -- my entire computer is in extremis, 
sending me ominous messages at odd moments & crashing me 20 times per 
hour. I know I have to deal with it, and I will -- when book is at the 

But, is there some reason why a filter like this doesn't work for most 
people? I also had a filter for the Post-Factory ISP (a different one at 
the time), very effective too. The arrangement there was that Spam went to 
a folder which I checked every few days -- there would be 70 or 80 
e-mails in it, none of which I ever wanted to read.

I also note that I got several inquiries about Post-Factory from folks who 
neglected to notify their Spam blocker, so I got a notice similar to the 
current one. I figured they were too stupid to appreciate great 
literature & left it at that.

Anyway, John, sorry if I was overwrought... It's been that kind of a year. 
But kudos to you for the mea culpa...