Re: netiquette argument of the month

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org]
> On Behalf Of Gadi Evron
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 5:35 PM
> To: funsec () linuxbox org
> Subject: Re: [funsec] netiquette argument of the month
>
> On 7/11/10 6:10 AM, der Mouse wrote:
> > Well, I can't really say you have anyone but yourself to be blamed
if
> > you get blocked for your rudeness.  (That's what assuming everyone
> > else's software works the way yours does amounts to.  It's also what
> > burning others' resources (mailbox space, bandwidth, human time) for
> > your convenience amounts to.)
>
> I don't see it as rudeness (and I'm an expert). I see it as practical
> and net-engulfing practice. I am okay with your beliefs going against
> the mainstream. All the power to you. But "blocked by zealotness" is a
> flag I am willing to carry, my friend. As if anyone will block me for
a
> common harmless practice they disapprove of, they are rude, and I
don't
> want them as my friends.
> ;)
>
>       Gadi.

[Tomas L. Byrnes] 
I find it very interesting that the supposedly most "liberal" people in
general are the ones most ready to take offense at, and attempt to
censor, the speech of others.

I was on the Internet (OK, it was NSFNET) in 1981. It's why I'm tomb,
because there was already a tom @ the RDS computer society.

Back then, minimizing traffic, text only, and all the things Rich and
Mouse argue for made sense. They even made sense when we started to let
the AOLamers on in the early 90s. Now, they really don't. You have ample
processing power at your disposal to filter and categorize at will. If
your mailer or mail client is too dumb to know an identical post sent TO
you and to a list you subscribe to should only show up once, you really
should get another mail client.

SPAM is one thing: it's abuse of your paid for resources for the
economic gain of another.

These holy wars about keeping the net as it once was are pure Luddism, a
trait often found in those who call themselves (but are actually the
antithesis of) "liberal".

Laissez faire.

Rich is free to bin my mail, but he is in violation of the RFCs with his
response code.

IF he chooses to use his mailer to insult his senders, he should send a
571, with at least an actual sentence about WHY, not some lame comment
about the sender.

The better option is to silently send me to /dev/null, what we used to
call "twitting", before some n00b born after the 'net made that a
business.




_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.