Re: OT: offending sig + headers
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:36:56AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> You make it sound like the entire community is upset by my practice,
> when as far as I'm aware, it's only a handful of exceptions.
> WHY? What makes it so terrible? Why is it so important to YOU that
> YOU should be able to contact ME privately? What possible reason can
> you have to care so much? You don't know me, and I'm guessing you
> don't particularly like me... What difference can it possibly make?
Ok, so I can't speak for the community at large, but only for myself.
Perhaps some others share my views.
The part I find offensive is coming to a public forum and announcing
that everyone should follow the rules you've set down should they want
to deal with you. That idea itself seems rude and pompous, more than
what the specific rules are.
> Other people seem to be perfectly content with the inherent risk of
> losing mail to filtering. I'm not. That's the difference. I don't
> know what methods you used, but every single method mentioned on this
> list has the potential to stop legitimate mail I would care about
> being delivered to me. Except the one I use.
I don't filter, for many of the same reasons that you've mentioned.
The greylisting implementation that I use works very well for me. I get
mailing list mail, personal mail, business mail, all without problems or
manual steps, and with very little spam. The only downside is a small
initial delay for servers not previously seen. There is no mail that
goes missing because of false positives. I don't care if you or others
use this. It doesn't suit everyone.
> I'm done with this thread, the list has already wasted way too much
> time on this nonsense, and so have I, certainly.
Whatever else, we can agree on that much.
--
Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG
dwchandler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation