Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:13:34 -0400
Reply-To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: >> WET TEEN (you know the rest)
In-Reply-To: <015501c0c81e$5ecb4dd0$0200000a@nbtel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
At 11:43 AM 4/18/2001, Jean-Guy Savoie wrote:
>I don't think that either of these points are valid for a list such as
>this, if a simple inclusion rule were adopted
Yes, I think that re-asking the question in a much more specific fashion
and without the "dirty-words" red herring would produce more useful
advice. *One* answer of many said that Listserv won't do this, but it was
not L-Soft saying that, just User X.
Just a side note: I subscribe to about fifteen mailing lists, almost all
either egroups/yahoo or listserv. I only receive general-purpose spam on
*one* of them (small-timers often join yahoo lists to send spam, and are
booted off after one bite) -- and as it's been pointed out by someone else,
<vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com> is now surely known by human spammers as a live
and therefore much more valuable address, which means that the volume will
continue to increase.
>(I concur that the banned word approach is difficult or useless).
Worse than that, it makes you look stupid. In illustration, Kodak
Corporation recently rejected a post from the Model Engineering list
because it contained the word "cock," used in the sense of definition 4
below. Now I submit that Kodak has gotten itself in a cleft stick, since
on the one hand they invented the shutter that needs to be cocked (granted,
most of them are gone except on Really Expensive cameras), and on the other
hand if they allow this word then sooner or later one of their employees
will get a rude shock to the sensibilities which apparently they have taken
on the responsibility to prevent. Leaving aside whether Kodak legitimately
have that responsibility, it's bad business for them to take on
ten-year-olds in a contest they can't possibly win.
cock1 (k¼k) n. 1.a. An adult male chicken; a rooster. b. An adult male of
various other birds. 2. A weathervane shaped like a rooster; a weathercock.
3. A leader or chief. 4. A faucet or valve by which the flow of a liquid or
gas can be regulated. 5.a. The hammer of a firearm. b. The position of the
hammer of a firearm when ready for firing. 6. A tilting or jaunty turn
upward: the cock of a hat. 7. Vulgar. Slang. The penis. 8. Archaic. The
characteristic cry of a rooster early in the morning. --cock v. cocked,
cock·ing, cocks. --tr. 1. To set the hammer of (a firearm) in a position
ready for firing. 2. To set (a device, such as a camera shutter) in a
position ready for use. 3. To tilt or turn up or to one side, usually in a
jaunty or alert manner: cocked an eyebrow in response to a silly question.
4. To raise in preparation to throw or hit: cocked the bat before swinging
at the pitch. --intr. 1. To set the hammer of a firearm in a position ready
for firing. 2. To turn or stick up. 3. To strut; swagger. --idioms. cock a
snoot or cock a snook. Slang. To express scorn or derision by or as if by
placing the thumb on the nose and wiggling the fingers; thumb one's nose:
"[He] could cock a snoot at the rest of the . . . world and blithely go his
own way" (Elie Kedourie). cock of the walk. An overbearing or domineering
person. [Middle English cok, from Old English cocc, probably from Late
Latin coccus, from coco, a cackling, of imitative origin.]
cock2 (k¼k) n. 1. A cone-shaped pile of straw or hay. --cock tr.v.
cocked, cock·ing, cocks. To arrange (straw or hay) into piles shaped like
cones. [Middle English cok.]
If further illustration were needed, Eudora has just informed me that I
should have my mouth washed out with soap for attempting to send this
message. Hmpf.
>2. Second, the danger that the rule would be defeated by spammers is an
>unlikely scenario: spammers like to sent a standardized E-Mail message to
>as many million addresses as they can find. They are not in the business
>of customizing they're spam anymore than necessary. They won't be
>including "Vanagon" in their text either, despite the inherent sexyness of
>that particular vehicle.
Correct. Although it gravels me that spammers get 800:1 leverage from this
address, nonetheless these folks think in terms of hundreds of thousands of
emails sent per hour, and only the smallest of the small fry would even
dream of personalizing a spam to the list. Even the yahoo bottom-feeding
yahoo spammers don't do that. You too can get sixteen million addresses on
a CD for $50, and high-speed bulk mailers are widely available for
cheap. This of course excepts small-time spam that *is* targeted to
Vanagon owners...
>
>The inclusion rule could be "defeated" by legit interested third parties
>looking for our usual advice in a friendly, OPEN list, as aggravating as
>some of the stupid questions and postings can be. The benefit of the
>simple inclusion list rule would be to force the outsiders to read the
>rules, as pointed out in Ron's "Great Solution for Spamless Open
>List!!" posting. If they realy want to post to the list, they will have
>to do their homework.
Here's where I have a real problem -- if people aren't subscribed, how are
they supposed to read the answers? Oh that's right -- the members are
supposed to pmail them. Hmmm.
I think that if an inclusion rule is technically feasible, fine, let's do
it. It will teach people how to use email signatures... <g> But if it's
not -- Shut her down, Clancy, she's a-pumping mud!
Side note: I keep seeing references to how such-and-such arrangement would
lead to lots of extra work for the list-owner. I say rubbish. These
notions are based on the idea of a deus-ex-machina who is too stupid to do
his job right, so has to pass all his rejections upstairs for review. To
me this is the Wrong Answer -- instead, ask deus-ex to do a job he *can*
do, and then let him. He has no judgment, so don't ask for judgment calls,
because *guess who* is going to have to make them? Rejected postings
should get a listserv rejection message sent to the poster, and then be
dropped in the bit bucket to return to the primordial electronic
ooze. This now leaves it up to the poster to fix his problem, inquiring of
management if necessary.
david
David Beierl - Providence, RI
http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'84 VANAGON Westy "Dutiful Passage"
'85 GL "Poor Relation"
| 
