[Nottingham] Tux Games Antispam - Your message is being held
andy at lug.org.uk
Mon Dec 10 16:19:45 GMT 2007
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:30:31PM +0000, Duncan John Fyfe wrote:
> Someone being abusive to Michael for making a choice they disagree with
> (or for any other unreason) does nothing but harm. As Michael (Leuty)
> indicates, such incidents seriously damage us as a LUG because they give
> us a bad reputation for abusive behaviour and shit like that sticks far
> more than the many times people have asked for and received good,
> friendly advice.
But expecting the world to do your antispam work for you and not
giving a toss when your software backscatters onto uninvolved
parties is something that should be allowed to pass unchallenged?
> No matter what you think about C/R systems; Michael (Simms) has *chosen*
> a solution which works *for him* and I have no doubt he will continue to
> use it until he is convinced that his C/R system is doing more harm than
> good *to him*.
Have you ever heard the phrase "think globally, act locally"? On
the Internet you *cannot* just do "what works for you", because we
have to interoperate. It isn't the things that C/R does inside the
recipient's system that are objectionable, it's the fact that it
then sends automated mail back out in abusive ways. It's not
something you can just shrug and say "his system, his rules".
> Like many solutions to real world problems it isn't perfect but it
> seems to do a good enough job (*for him*) - just like the current
> mail system.
The flaws of the current mail system have only become apparent now
that it's been in use for 20+ years and no one is saying they don't
need to be fixed.
C/R on the other hand is broken and abusive from the start and once
more than a tiny minority of people begin to use it this will become
> Declaring "Well I wouldn't say that, just that it was designed in
> a different time." is merely trying to avoid uncomfortable fact
> that, as is the current mail system has significant flaws but "it
> seems to do a good enough job" to be usable by millions of people
> every day.
I'm not avoiding the fact that internet email has severe problems.
I also don't see how that fact means you can set up something else
which is selfish, abusive and clueless and then throw your hands up
saying "they're both as bad as each other!" (which they aren't, but
even if they were, where's the logic?)
> To convince someone like Michael (Simms) to move away from a C/R system
> (or away from windows, outlook or any other "bad" system) someone is
> going to have to be able to demonstrate an alternative (better) system
> that solves *their* problem - not the problem you think they have.
He wrote it! If he did that and then watched it backfire onto the
list, and presumably watches his logs as it sends out crap to people
who never even contacted him and *still* isn't going to change his
view then what real hope is there?
> Then you need to convince them why your alternative is better
There is so much material out there now, as well as common sense, as
to why C/R is bad, that anyone with an open mind cannot fail to be
If however one is willing to be selfish and abusive then C/R is
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/nottingham/attachments/20071210/4684a094/attachment.bin
More information about the Nottingham