From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Nov 27 0:51:37 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A5A37B42A for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:51:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id fAR8pFR46936; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:51:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: , "Stephen Hovey" , Subject: RE: this spam Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:51:14 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c17720$abb7e8e0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011126075714.01042450@mail.sage-american.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >-----Original Message----- >From: jacks@sage-american.com [mailto:jacks@sage-american.com] >Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 5:57 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Stephen Hovey; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: RE: this spam > > >"...please shut the fuck up about it and stop harming the efforts..." > >That kind of talk is offensive to me and is as bad as the spam (which I >just delete and get on with other stuff). OK - so the point of your disagreement is that your going to throw out 500 lines of logical explanation of why not filtering spam at the mailserver is wrong and make a stink over a single sentence that you find offensive. So basically what your admitting here is that you have just about no response to the logical arguments - save the "filtering spam is censorship" argument - and so your going to simply ignore them and focus on a side issue. (the swearing) Thanks for the validation that the technical arguments of why spam filtering should be centralized are right. And note that I was very polite - I did ask "please". >While I've noticed you get on the >"soapbox" a lot (every day) and dictate behavior to people on just about >everything, try to use better language! Just help, without scolding >everyone so much and clean up the talk! ...just another opinion and nothing >personal! > Oh, so I'm now scolding everyone? Once again, this is yet another cheap trick. Your simply trying to build a straw man to knock down. Well knock away, my friend! Spamming does get personal for me, because the company I work at spends money (in the form of my wasted time) for me to clean up after spewers. If you think I enjoy chasing network thieves your nuts. I don't and if someone could invent a device that sent a near-lethal shock through the Internet to anyone sending a spam spew I'd be the first in line to buy one. Then I'd be tenth in line to buy another one because I'd have worn out it's buttons by the time that they got to #9. >I'm beginning to believe your soapboxing is spam in disguise... ...book >sales perhaps? ...hmmm... maybe your ad at the footer of very message makes >me think that...? > If it was then I should be attacking you every chance I get since you've shown that you are willing to draw attention to my sig in your response. In case you want to know I happen to be proud of the book which is why I list it in my sig. Would you rather have me dump a big abstract of it onto the list once a month? Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message