[PLUG] [Fwd: Verify plug-admin at lists.pdxlinux.org for dduncan at hexi.com]
Russ Johnson
russj at dimstar.net
Tue Sep 2 13:26:01 UTC 2003
Zot O'Connor wrote:
> I would argue if it is so easy to misconfigure, it is broken to begin
> with.
That's a judgement call, and one I don't share. Lots of software, easily
misconfigured, can fubar something else.
> The person who misconfigured theirs (who is probably bouncing all
> his mail) was [likely] more intelligent than 95% of all the users.
You are assuming this, so it's a spurious argument.
> I am a bit shocked no one has called you out on this. This is just flat
> out false. You have extraordinarily little control over who calls your
> phone. You only have two choices, refuse to answer the line (as you
> mentioned in a later email using an answering machine), or follow a
> punitive path (sue based on the do not call list).
Now you are splitting hairs. I would argue that they haven't completed a
phone call unless I picked up. If I don't pick up, they have attempted,
nothing more.
If they hang up during the outbound message, then I count that as an
incompleted phone call as well. My machine doesn't count it, since
there's no message.
>>I should have control over who can send me email.
>
>
> Think about that statement more. It is really dumb. This is a complete
> failure to understand the design criteria of communications systems.
OK, I'll refrase. I should have control over who can DELIVER email to my
system. They can try to send all they want. But I reserve the right to
close the door and block them. In fact, I'm doing so, right now. Certain
IP addresses are blocked from connecting on port 25 to my system.
> Again you fail to understand communication design. You are assume the
> sender is the most active component in terms of desired communication.
> This is simply not true. Its about 50/50 (sender/receiver) at best, and
> more often than not the receiver wants the communication more than the
> sender.
Then the reciever will configure the software so the sender doesn't get
a C/R.
In reality, what difference does all this make? Some folks will use C/R
software. When they do, they have made a decision to block mail from
unknown parties (similar to bouncing email from systems that don't
reverse resolve). If you choose to not participate, then you BOTH lose.
> How can I make such a bold statement? The receiver would not
> be receiving messages (for any system) unless there was a desire for the
> message.
This is more argument to install the software correctly, and to make
sure you update it when you request mail from a source that can't
respond to the C/R.
> No, you have set up a bunch of false assumptions as I mentioned above.
> In this particular case, the sender(s) (the LIST) couldn't give a rat's
> ass over the person receiving the mail. Do not think that everyone who
> emails you wants to desperately contact you.
I'm not. I'm assuming that when YOU write an email directly to me, YOU
desire to send information to me. If I've never communicating with you
previously, I have no stake in the matter. So at this point, the ratio
is 100:0.
If we've previously communicated, then the ratio is different. Depending
on how much I want to receive mail from you, I may add you to my white
list. If I don't want to receive from you, or don't care one way or the
other, then I'd probably leave it alone until YOU initiate contact.
Until that time, the receiver doesn't care.
> This are all real examples I can pull from recent emails (OK, like The
> HOT GEEK GIRL would go out with Eric).
And they are possible. No one said that managing this would start out easy.
These are also things that can be tuned.
> Another major difference is where does the mail sit when in limbo. If
> you have challenge/response and a MUA whitelist feature, how do they
> work together.
I don't know, and that's a good question. Either the mail is delivered
anyway, and the response simply flags future messages to not be
processed, or the program holds it, pending a response.
Personally, I still have spam delivered to a special folder on my
system, because I do get false positives. I would probably impliment the
former, so I could verify "bad messages".
>>I filter my phone calls with caller id. If it says "Out of area" or
>>"Unknown", then I left the answering machine get it. It's my line,
>>and I can choose to accept or reject calls as I see fit.
>
>
> The big difference is that you are accepting the call in full. The
> answering machine did not drop the call, you can still pick it up.
>
> My brother does this, and it catches when I call him while I am roaming
> on my cell phone, which then looks out of area.
I figure if someone wants to talk to me without talking to my machine
first, they'll let me know who they are during the ringing.
I haven't had an out of area call in the last month that didn't hang up
before the machine spits out it's default message.
I don't even have a customized message. It's just, "Hello, please leave
a message, after the beep.". Usually, they hang up after the word
"message".
>>Actually, no, I don't, recycling is free.
>
> Umm, this is not related, but this is simply not true. recycling may be
> paid for by other means (trash fees, taxes, etc.). But it is not
> free. Occasionally it breaks even or makes a profit somewhere down the
> line, but it is not free for pickup costs, or processing costs.
OK, here's the deal. I *HAVE* to have garbage service. The recycle bins
do not cost any extra. SO, when it comes to MY WALLET, and how much I
SPEND, it's free.
In fact, I can make an arguement that it SAVES ME MONEY, since I can use
and pay less for a smaller garbage can because I recycle.
So, in reality, recycling isn't free. It pays me.
--
Russ Johnson
Stargate Online
Home: http://www.dimstar.net
LDP: http://ldp.dimstar.net
More information about the PLUG
mailing list