Dave Bigham <dbigham@cantec.com> writes:
> It looks to me like the anti-spammers have finally gotten to the
> position so many other zealots have arrived at. The end justifies the
> means.
> It goes something like this. Spam is evil. Evil must be eradicated.
> The eradication of evil is paramount to anything else. The eradication
> if Spam must be accomplished no matter who gets hurt or whose principles
> are violated.
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Where is this coming from? As near as I can
tell from Ron's original message, he didn't say anything at all about what
he was planning on doing. He simply expressed concerns about several
well-known security problems in managing mailing lists, which presumably
affect what he's doing in some way.
It's possible that he's going to do something you don't like; it's
possible that he won't. I can think of a few rough concepts he could be
working with off-hand that would raise similar worries.
In my previous e-mail exchanges with Ron, I've found him to be quite
reasonable, if aggressive and emphatic about his opinions. I don't see
any justification for attacking something we don't even know the details
of yet.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
References:
|
|
