Re: Bounce from andre@linuxdiskcert.org

[brian@worldcontrol.com]

> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > > Nope. My personal experience with these orbses is: f*ck them.         
> > > A good lot of them are _not_ contacting blacklisted ISPs. But on the  
> > > other hand, some at least allow fast _unlisting_.                     
> > > I give you the simple and well-thought hint _not_ to use a mail       
> > > configuration relying on _external_ databases whatsoever.

> > [...] 
> brian@worldcontrol.com wrote:
> > Would you like to be cc'ed on my spam folder?  50 to 100 spams a day?
> > Try being a member of the internet since the darpanet days and having
> > 1400 domains with your email address.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 04:38:00PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Two notes on that:

> 1) Please re-read my mail. I wrote "_external_ databases". I did not
> tell you to _not_ filter _yourself_.

I use external databases.

> 2) We are just on the brink of the "communication century". Even if
> you don't like it, direct communication between people grows immensly,
> whereas broadcasting the same information to many people is stepping
> back. The reason is simple: people are beginning to dislike filtered
> (read censored) information quite a bit, they have simply been told
> lies too often.  SPAM is of nature broadcasted information, but anyway
> you would probably not mind getting the complete same info as a mail
> _only_ addressed to you. Still you would choose to delete it, because
> it may be of no special interest for you, but you would most certainly
> not get that angry about it.

Trying to find interesting email among 'Hot Young Teen Girls', which
is at least honest, and among the less forthright emails trying to
masquarade as something else in order to get me to read them certainly
makes me angry regardless of how they are addressed.

> What I basically want to say: just live with it.

Interesting philosophy.  You are saying that anyone may speak at you
and you have to at least read the subject line.  I wonder what your
corrollary for real life would be?

We are at absolutely opposite extremes.

Go see what my current company does:

http://www.highregard.com

> > Not an easy task.  At least in my country and specifically the
> > internet people are free to interact with others in the way they
> > find best.
> 
> Well, I think this is good, you don't?

I don't believe my statement implies that I don't.


> > Some people have spam filters, some don't.

> In the end it's all a matter of who to trust more: yourself or others.

I find it a matter of time.

> Just to give you a small glimpse: I get several hundred mails a day,
> my top day in 2001 reached 832. Interestingly spam is no more than
> about 5%, and I use _no_ filter at all (besides my brain :-).

I am glad for you.

> And to end it: I don't want to have _any_ worldcontrol ;-)

Worldcontrol is from the book 'Colossus: The Forbin Project'.

> Regards, Stephan

> PS: If you want to go ahead in this talk, please keep it off LKML, it
> doesn't look like common interest to me.

That has always been a tough issue for me.  Your email, which was cc'ed
to l-k, will go into the various archives and forever be "findable" via
google groups and other archives.  If I reply offline from histories
perspective I will never have replied.

I have a particularly offensive and inflamatory piece addressed to Alan
Cox in my postpone box, but its somewhat off-topic and since I was out
sick for two weeks (in the hospital) I was really torn about restarting
the off-topic discussion.

On the other hand, when looking at the archives it looks like I didn't
respond to some criticisms, which in many people minds means they
are valid.

-- 
Brian Litzinger <brian@worldcontrol.com>

    Copyright (c) 2001 By Brian Litzinger, All Rights Reserved