Re: bincancels in linux.kernel

[David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>]

On 04 Dec 2002 04:52:24 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>>>>>> "David" == David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> writes:

>David>         Spam is bad, but suppressing useful legitimate content
>David> because of unsophisticated spam-checking algorithms

>this is nothing to do with spam; that's not the only form of abuse that
>exists.

	My arguments apply equal well to all forms of abuse.

>Perhaps you also missed the point from my first message that a) I don't
>intentionally receive the linux.* groups and therefore had not previously
>needed to consider whether they were getting binaries and b) that I stopped
>as soon as this was drawn to my attention. (I did already have in place
>exemptions for all the generally-known binaries hierarchies.)

	No, I caught those points. However, you cut the comments I was responding to 
and then pretended that I was responding to your actions. You said:

>well, I would have to disagree (even if you don't think that binaries
>coming via the mailing list would be a problem, there is still the
>question of binaries posted via news - and the recent levels of abuse
>in comp.binaries.*.d, rec.*, vmsnet.* etc. suggests that there are
>plenty of people who are happy to post binaries anywhere they can
>regardless of the real purpose of a group)

	And *that* is what I was responding to.

	DS