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. Camden Hardy camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net http://www.hardyphotography.net 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 > things. > > 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 > printer.) > > 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... > > best, > > Judy >
|