Subject: RE: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:48:52 +1100

At 20:51 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>It is completely clueless of you to send email to people who
>you have on your bounce list. You have sent me three emails
>today directly to me, but you don't want to look at any replies?

Ah, I see. You define "clueless" as "things Phillip Hallam-Baker doesn't 
like". Call it rude, if you like, but calling it clueless is baseless 
idiocy (by the way, this is still polite compared to the response your 
original accusation deserved - want to try to ratchet it up again?). I know 
the consequences of my choice, and that's the way I want it to operate. And 
it doesn't affect anybody except people who are willing to work for spammers.

My domain, my rules. I don't want email from Versign, period. List traffic 
- on list traffic, is an exception, primarily because it isn't affected by 
the same rules, but also for other reasons.

>And as has been frequently pointed out, blacklisting does not
>indicate anything. SPEWS originally listed us because we chose
>an ISP they decided to dislike, or at least so what little
>notification they provided indicated.

This isn't a third party black list. This is *my* black list based on spam 
*I* have received from Verisign. Verisign will come off that list (as well 
as the no doubt tens of thousands of other private black lists its on) 
approximately when hell freezes over.
--
Troy Rollo				Chairman, CAUBE.AU
[email-masked]			Executive Director, iCAUCE

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Chuq Von Rospach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:27:49 -0800

boy, I'm obscure reference guy today.

who will watch the watchers?

---

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:35:42 +1100

>who will watch the watchers?

I don't see what you're getting at here. Certainly neither of those roles 
is free of responsibility (in the sense of being answerable) to others. 
There is a board of both organisations, and each organisation has a system 
of membership that the board is answerable to.
--
Troy Rollo				Chairman, CAUBE.AU
[email-masked]			Executive Director, iCAUCE

---

From: Chuq Von Rospach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:16:27 -0800

On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 11:35  PM, Troy Rollo wrote:
> I don't see what you're getting at here.

no, you don't, do you? But that's okay.

---

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:06:30 +1100

>no, you don't, do you? But that's okay.

Well, unless you have completely misunderstood the nature of CAUBE.AU and 
iCAUCE, your comment simply has no bearing on that to which you attempted 
to relate it, but since your non-elucidations suggests you (despite 
protestations to the contrary) seem to prefer the ad-hominem, I guess we 
have to leave it.

(And yes, I admit to having used ad-hominems against one poster here, but 
only in response to a baseless ad-hominem that poster directed at me, and I 
didn't rely solely on the ad-hominems as you have).
--
Troy Rollo				Chairman, CAUBE.AU
[email-masked]			Executive Director, iCAUCE

---

From: mathew <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:03:23 -0500

On Saturday, Mar 29, 2003, at 00:48 US/Eastern, Troy Rollo wrote:
> My domain, my rules. I don't want email from Versign, period. List 
> traffic - on list traffic, is an exception, primarily because it isn't 
> affected by the same rules, but also for other reasons.

Well, that's all fine, and I think that Verisign sucks too... However, 
do you really not see how perverse it is to send personal e-mail to 
people at Verisign, when you've already decided that you don't want to 
hear from them, and when any e-mail that comes from them will only 
annoy you?

The whole idea of putting someone in a spam filter and then continuing 
to e-mail him is just silly. It's like kids in a playground shouting 
insults and then sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "Nyaah 
nyaah nyaah can't hear you!"

mathew

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:02:24 -0700 (MST)

> From: mathew <[email-masked]>

> ...

Did the other person send mail to the gentleman at Verisign?  I guessed
from context that the only private mail was from the Verisign employee
to the other person, probably consisting of additional, private copies
of the Verisign employee's public messages.  Is that guess wrong?

If that guess is right, wouldn't it be best for everyone to stop
sending those duplicate copies?

Sending extra private copies of one's words when one knows they are
unwelcome seems like the equivalent of trying to scream them over
"Nyaah nyaah nyaah can't hear you!" chanting, and so worse than the
chanting.  That seems particularly true in this mailing list where
consent to receive mail is a central issue.

For decades I've felt that extra, private copies of one's public words
suggest an unseemly belief that their importance that justifies heroic
efforts to ensure they are not lost.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:29:16 +1000

>of the Verisign employee's public messages.  Is that guess wrong?

There were some copies of on-list messages, but no strictly private messages.

>efforts to ensure they are not lost.

I think that's a little over the top, but yes, I would normally regard 
private copies as unnecessary, except in limited circumstances.
--
Troy Rollo				Chairman, CAUBE.AU
[email-masked]			Executive Director, iCAUCE