[CentOS] OT Mailing List Spam

[William L. Maltby]

On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 12:42 -0400, Mark A. Lewis wrote:
> >Well, there are ways and there are ways. An e-mail that allows a single
> >reply to confirm an abuse report (avoiding spurious reports/spams) could
> >be sent to the original reporter. Have a single change needed, varied
> >with an arbitrary value to avoid mechanical responses, could accomplish
> >the same thing with less time/effort on the part of the original
> >reporter.
> Or, a web form. What is the difference?

As mentioned, workload. I'm sure I need not detail the differences, as
small as they may be.

> 
> >What we see implemented is really more of an "offload effort from us to
> >them" solution. That is not contained in the intent of the RFC. So, the
> >real rant comes not against the RFC intent, but against the
> >implementation which forces more workload onto a well-intentioned
> >reporter of abuse.
> So, your complaint is with who is doing it, not how they are doing it? Workload? Cut and paste the original mail into the web form. And, in the future, you can bypass the initial e-mail.

I was not the OP, nor do I care. I have no complaint. Who vs how? I
can't see how you reached that conclusion. Observing that the
methodology chosen may be less than optimal, for those that have to use
it (always dependent on individual situations, of course), and
commenting that they should have been able to do better has only the
most tenuous connection to your statement "So, your complaint is with
who is doing it...".

> 
> >  Why you feel like you are too good to communicate them in an
> > effective manner is your own issue, not theirs or the RFC.
> 
> >One hell of an assumption on your part there.
> 
> There is no assumption. You are the one who was ranting about not being able to communicate with them on your terms. The RFC does not specify that all communication must be by SMTP, only that they must reply to the abuse address. You just don't like it for whatever reason.

Wrong! I was nbot the complainant. ADD at work here? :-)

For you to state "Why you feel like you are too good to communicate..."
can only come from assumption as nothing in the OPs statements implied
or overtly indicated such. Ergo: assumption or deduction on your part.
If deduction, certainly flawed.

> <snip>

Just an FYI: my particular background leads me to make statements such
as "they could've done better", or similar. It is backed by long
experience in diverse related areas. That does not give my opinions any
more (or less) weight than those of others. Nor does it enhance nor
debase my right to hold and express an opinion, regardless of the
"Little Tyrants" that may frequent lists such as this.

'Nuff said
-- 
Bill