SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Time to re-visit a curly one
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Time to re-visit a curly one
- From: Peter Rundle <prundle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 16:20:52 +1000
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (X11/20060420)
Jeff Waugh wrote:
But both are wrong.
(I always have a problem with your replies Jeff and on this front I know I'm not
alone. Your statement above leaves no room for argument it's just so damn self
righteous. "You're wrong" which by implication means "I'm right". Very
confrontational. An 8 or 9 on the "RTFM insult scale" but lets not go there again ;)
Yes my two statements are slightly different. The second one describes one of
the consequences of what I was proposing which you expanded on below. I.E if you
remove all traces of the original senders e-mail address then one of the
consequences is that (unless the poster provides their e-mail address in the
body of the message) any reply can only go back to the list. Thus my original
question; "is this such a bad thing"?
Even if you munge out the From: header, a smart SPAM harvester will still be
able to acquire your email address. Look at all the headers in any mail from
this list. For this approach to have any value, almost all the identifying
headers would have to be stripped, making identification of the poster kinda
challenging (apart from those who have obvious signatures).
(exactly what I'm proposing)
a list like that would be fun as a social experiment or research project but
terrible for building and maintaining a vibrant community. No thanks!
A statement but where's the supporting argument. What is in fact so bad about a
list whereby the senders e-mail is not automatically disclosed by the mailing
software? Do you really claim to be an expert on social behaviour that you know
this will cause people to drop out of the community?
Why is that?
Do you think people will refuse to post to a list if their e-mail address is not
automatically exposed to all recipients? If a poster wishes to be contacted
off-list then they can reveal their e-mail within the body in such a manner that
a human can contact them but an e-mail harvesting program cannot.
Do you think that posters will slander people on the list because they think
they can't be identified. Combined with my first suggestion that posters have to
be subscribed, then the list admin staff can trace the author of objectionable
material. (yes I realise that I'm advocating work for others at this point)
Do you think people won't reply because they don't know the (e-mail) identity of
the original poster? Most people sign their e-mail and reveal their identity in
the Sender name (the bit outside the <email@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, I'm not advocating
the removal of that. Most people expecting an answer to a question or seeking
help would understand that they might have to reveal their name or some such if
they expect a reply.
I personally am considering reluctantly removing my self from this community
because of the increasing chaff which I suspect is about to become a flood.
Would you choose to join a community which involved dealing with a constant
stream of spam? (Not that I'm suggesting slug is a stream of spam at the moment,
but it's on the rise) Which is the lesser of two evils here?
Whilst the rhetoric that spammers be damned lets not give into them is endearing
it's not realistic. And the "jumping through hoops" to communicate with someone
is a bit emotive. I certainly don't want to make it hard to communicate but is
what I'm proposing really going to make it hard to communicate? Only with those
who choose to make it hard. Essentially I'm advocating the poster can choose
(rather than the list admin), how hard they want to make it for people to reply.