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

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

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: Re: The "Offended" re-replies....
  • From: Dean Kansky <deankansky@yahoo.com>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;b=j2jbfTqIrqTjJRK5yAt61R88jjlqMycGYRLqQc6dL+xODYWNdhynUYAysgYTExZn+wHso8BFYN15VhscR6AJHqwLcLTIaWb6aDmNh5AQ8m/sP22P6dE2pzacjekjshyZ4In6jFzFUUsXA6Vwu6ySdSlYLP00LOJsm89Ro50KF8k= ;
  • In-reply-to: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0608262014460.16287@panix2.panix.com>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

As funny as it sounds, John's email got sent, with
some others on the list,  automatically to my Yahoo
Spam folder. I had nothing to do with it, my Yahoo
account does this on its own. I will mark things as
"not spam", which is fine for that person. But because
of this, i need to read all my spam box titles before
I delete.


P.S Judy, I will leave Kant to you. I have never liked
his ethics. More of a Nietsche man at heart. I like
that he tells us to live an aesthetic life and also
when he tells us what is wrong with Kant.

--- Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> 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

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around