William Warren wrote:
> Don't do it, Pat! If you do, the terrorists have won!
> William Warren
> (Filter noise from my address for direct replies)
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why would you say something like that?
> The 'terrorists' won long ago, when you started asking people to
> 'filter noise from your address' and when readers started using
> Spam Assassin and when mailing list maintainers started requiring
> their readers to jump through hoops to get on or off mailing lists.
> Why is a simple minded filter -- (either the word '[telecom]' is
> present or it is not present) -- such a sign that the 'terrorists'
> have won? PAT]
Pat,
That was a joke. I had thought you would laugh.
Sorry.
William
(Filter noise from my address for direct replies. No laughing matter!)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I _would_ laugh if it were not such a
hypocritcal thing. People talk about how anything but the purest of
email address forms used in email are such a hassle (I quite agree)
but the same people then act like it is so 'politically incorrect' to
attack the problem at its source; i.e. the spammer/scammers who make
it necessary. You'll have to pardon me, but I get very tired of
having to give even a cursory review to several hundred items each
day which are only penis-enlargement advertisements, requests to
re-enter time and again all my personal banking information, etc. The
really evil thing about it all is even when I try my hardest, some
days _good_ messages get dumped by accident. People get one single
phish-item in their mail and think it is such an affront ... well,
I get hundreds of them daily, and even if I culd just type 'delete 1-250'
and be done with it, it would still be a nuisance, but when good
messages get caught in the middle of that mess each day as they _always_
do, it makes the job much harder. PAT]