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

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


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