Re: The "Offended" re-replies....
I'll turn off my spam filter if you turn of yours...
Seriously though...what's the big deal? Is this what you guys do when no
one posts to the list for a while? Pick fights about trivial things like
spam filters and mailing list archives?
Sure, John's spam blocker is a bit of an inconvenience, but security is
fundamentally a trade-off between functionality and convenience. By
requiring registration (whether it remembers you or not), his blocker is
doing a much better job than and automated one.
I hardly think it's fair for us to criticize him for his choice in
security software, even if we all get the occasional registration email.
On Sat, August 26, 2006 6:44 pm, Judy Seigel wrote:
> 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...