internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Tanner Lovelace <lovelace AT wayfarer.org>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:47:00 -0500
Steven Champeon wrote:
No, that's not bulk - that's abuse. Like I said, don't confuse the
issue. 'Bulk' means that the message was sent to many people / accounts
/ addresses. That's all that it means in the context of spam. If I send
you five thousand copies of the same message, but don't send it to anyone
else, that's abuse - that's not bulk mail.
If I can block the sender and the entire problem goes away, it's not UBE.
But, all of those messages come from different people. You *can't*
just block the sender and have the problem go away.
Besides, what "Bulk" actually is is a designation on the e-mail itself.
It's the "Precedence: Bulk" header on the e-mail. I maintain that this
stuff *should* be designated Bulk, because it's not regular e-mail.
It certainly should *not* be designated anything else like important, etc..
Don't get me wrong - there's enough to complain about WRT C/R - but to
confuse it with spam doesn't help anybody.
Huh? There's no confusion with spam here. Ok, perhaps I did mention
spam once, but the question of whether C-R should be labeled bulk
mail or not doesn't have anything to do with spam. There are many uses
for the bulk designation. For instance, many mailing lists use
Precedence: bulk (trilug does. inw, however, seems to use Precedence: list).
Tanner
--
Tanner Lovelace | lovelace(at)wayfarer.org | http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
GPG Fingerprint = A66C 8660 924F 5F8C 71DA BDD0 CE09 4F8E DE76 39D4
GPG Key can be found at http://wtl.wayfarer.org/lovelace.gpg.asc
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
Don't move! Or I'll fill ya full of... little yellow bolts of light!
Commander John Crichton (Farscape)
-
Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
, (continued)
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/19/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Shea Tisdale, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, James Manning, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/19/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Michael D. Thomas, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- C/R system math - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Jeremy Portzer, 11/20/2003
- Re: C/R system math - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: C/R system math [kook!] - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Sil Greene, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Michael D. Thomas, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Ian Meyer, 11/20/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Sil Greene, 11/20/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, K. Jo Garner, 11/20/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.