[NCLUG] mmmmmmm...spam control

[mike cullerton]

--On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 12:23 PM -0700 Mike Loseke 
<mike at verinet.com> wrote:

> Thus spake Evelyn Mitchell:
>
>> What do you all think? Would you consider it rude or inconvenient to
>> have to reply to a whitelist message? Several major linux names use
>> them now, and I don't mind if its going to a "I get way too much mail
>> because I'm well known" person.
>
>  My main problem with this is that it says that spam is ok and that I'll
> just go through the extra effort to only accept email from people I like
> or know will send me email. It doesn't do anything to stop spammers from
> spamming and does everything to torque off the people you forgot to add.
> I haven't subscribed to the Qwest telemarketer blocking service for this
> same reason (I just don't answer "out of area" calls).

i have to agree with loseke here. a whitelist seems like it's putting the 
onus on the good folks and the bad folks keep getting away with it.

unless i _really_ needed to send email to someone, i probably wouldn't 
respond to a whitelist email.

last summer i helped organize my 20th highschool reunion. whitelists would 
have _way_ added to the suckiness of that job.

>
>  A relevant quote (gee, a quote from me?) from good ol' Ben Franklin, and
> who can argue with Ben, is:

and isn't this a timely quote...

>
>           They that can give up essential liberty to
>           obtain a little temporary saftey deserve
>           neither liberty nor safety.
>                           -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759