On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 07:35, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Given the tone of Driscoll's messages to us, whom are innocent > > bystanders in this affair, I think your solution is quite unlikely to > > happen. > > Huh? What's wrong with the tone? The first message wasn't to > us, it was to the spammer. It was just copied to us, albeit in > a less than clueful way. The second message just said s/he didn't > like the situation and asked for our help.
It wan't asking for help, it was asking that we change the way we do things for their minor benefit. Thinking that the world revolves around yourself is a serious attitude problem, and not something that we want to pander to. > "I am against SPAM and it hurts to have it associated with my name in > any way." > > I can completely understand this sentiment. I also don't like it > that there are zillions of spams out there purporting to come from > me, and I wish I could do something about it. However you can't and you don't bother other people about it. Also the Driscoll is very annoying by using a false email address so it can't be replied to. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
