[ILUG] Hmm - old ilug site?

[Paul Jakma]

On Mon, 15 May 2000, adam beecher wrote:

  Private from other regular users, no, that would just be stupid.
  Private from spiders, yes, and why not?

cause that would be treating the symptom, not the cause.

You want to do something? Then rather than: 

1) bugging Colm/whoever to spend god knows how much time rewriting
all the archived mail *and* modifying a mail archiver written in
python (what happens to the local modification when the next version
of list software comes out?) which *might possibly* save you from
*some* spam.

why not instead:

2) fight the real problem -> the actual spammers. There's plenty of
stuff about this on the net. Start at mail-abuse.org. And there was a
link on slashdot to some organisation that will actually try to find
and prosecute spammers. 

Send your spam to them! 

Look at the headers of the spam, and forward the spam (with
headers) onto the RFC mandated abuse at upstream-provider.net.

Make sure that your ISP is using RBL (as colm pointed out). If you
control any email servers make sure it's secure, and configure it for
RBL maps, maybe even DUL too. (and if you're really paranoid ORBS).
  
  of hassle for many people, for a problem that can be fixed by
  one.

that's tantamount to saying ILUG is the indirect cause of the spam
you receive. Which is rubbish. 

  something that *will* happen - I guarantee it. And you all know

the problem is spam, not ILUG! Fight the SPAM!!! Apply your energy to
that..

  My phone bill may be irrelevant to you, but it ain't irrelevant
  to me. Reply-to sender V's Reply-to list is valid because I get
  two messages, when I only require the one.

that's a people problem then. There's a reason why *every* mail
client that i know of has "Reply to Sender" and "Reply to All".

personally i like getting the copies, cause it means one copy ends up
in the list folder, the other in my inbox - makes it easier to see
when you're involved in a thread.

  More bandwidth, bigger
  phone bill.
  
unless you're on a sub 9600 baud connection, then this is
waffle. (i'm on loads of lists, including linux-kernel, and
downloading mail takes less than 3 minutes with a 33k6.)

  This has been argued N times, and I'm not going to go into it
  again. I still haven't been presented with an argument that
  changes my mind.

Read above about the "Reply to {All,Sender}" feature that's been
around since god knows when. Setting Reply-To == list breaks this
functionality - and so makes a list harder to use.
  
  Nope. I still think a lot more would be achieved if people were a
  little less inclined to throw offhand, usless comments like that
  around.

You should consider the possibility that perhaps these comments might
actually have a well thought out rationale behind them, and perhaps
you should listen when the rationale is offered and try understand it
from the offeree's point of view. 

(not being smart here, honest guv, but Colm has given the reasons why
he'd prefer not to do this, and you havn't apparently digested these
reasons).
  
  Well, as I said, I think you're going overboard with the "forked
  version". However...

it's a fork. Even worse a fork in a piece of software written in a
language which (rightly or wrongly) is a CS curiosity. That would be
unmaintainable.
  
regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie
PGP5 key: http://www.clubi.ie/jakma/publickey.txt
-------------------------------------------
Fortune:
Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers
something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.