[Nottingham] Tux Games Antispam - Your message is being held

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:53:27PM +0000, ForkBombFluf wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Andy Smith wrote:
> >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?
> 
> If he doesn't give a toss, why would he even bother responding with his 
> reasoning for using it as he did?  Best of luck gettng any sort of 
> thought-out reply from a spammer.

I don't expect him to.  It was for the benefit of the archives and
anyone else considering implementing C/R, since at first glance it
can seem very appealing.

> >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.
> 
> Maybe you should consider pushing this ideal with someone more deserving, 
> the likes of Microsoft and their Internet Explorer 7 development team 
> spring to mind.

How do you know I don't?  It has no relevance to the discussion at
hand.

> I really am continually amazed by how much bitterness and idealism this 
> topic seems to tow behind it.

It's only through continual opposition that this wrong-headed
non-solution will be stamped out.

> >>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?
> 
> As he pointed out, it works well in a majority of cases, and he is looking 
> at why it hasn't worked in this instance, ostensibly with the aim of 
> fixing it. (Although a "sorry" instead of "I'm not going to apologize" 
> might have been received a bit better!)

And as I and others have pointed out it can never be fixed because
the entire concept is inherently selfish and abusive.

> >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
> >convinced.
> >
> >If however one is willing to be selfish and abusive then C/R is
> >almost ideal.
> 
> Your opinion has been noted.  Beating a penguin over and over with a stick 
> will not change his mind to your way of thinking, only cause him to be 
> wary of people with sticks.

As I already said in the very message you have replied to, I already
considered the chance of changing his mind to be near-zero given
that he is the author of the software concerned, presumably watching
it send mails to innocent third parties and seeing it malfunction
several times, still does not see the fatal flaws.

> Please, can you either approach the matter in a more academic and
> helpful way that doesn't involve ad hominmen attacks or (better
> yet)) move on?

There doesn't really seem to be much else to say.  Which parts of
the selfish, abusive and clueless nature of C/R do you feel needs
more academic discussion?

Cheers,
Andy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/nottingham/attachments/20071210/51ced631/attachment.bin