Michelle, On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:25:27PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2007-05-17 20:45:54, schrieb Derek Martin: > > that's true, I am arrogant. But I'm also right. My methods minimize > > the time spent reviewing unwanted mail, while also GUARANTEEING ZERO > > LOST MAIL WITH 100% CERTAINTY. No other anti-spam methodology can do > > This is not right, since IF someone want to send you quickly a message > YOU LOST THIS MESSAGE and OFFEND THE SENDER! -- You lost! SPAM is whatever the individual defines it to be. I have defined private messages from list participants as spam, and I am not concerned about losing them -- obviously. *I* get to decide what is important *to me*, and I don't believe it is possible that any participants here can have something "important" to tell me that is unsuitable for posting to the list. And if it really is that important, I can be found fairly easily through the information contained in my sig, as I have stated repeatedly. I didn't want to be rude, but I also don't want to rehash this whole thread, so the only other thing I have to say is that I did read all of your messages, and your arguments are not any different from all of the other arguments people have made over the last 5 years or so, and I remain unswayed. I find your methods unsuitable. I believe I adequately addressed each one of your points previously in the thread. If you choose to black-list me because you think my behavior is anti-social, that's your prerogative. Please let this thread die the death it deserves. ;-) Thanks! -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachment:
pgpRwCnQaf7bb.pgp
Description: PGP signature