Re: LYNX-DEV lynx-dev list status/problems

[Jay W. Meeuwig]

RE: "> If it is true that the policy for accepting messages has changed"

Howdy Klaus!
U raised an extremely intersting point... I assume U r talking about 
changes at "sig.net" vis-a-vis the "spam" issue... [ R there changes???]

My own ISP is {also?} screwing around with trying to block "spam";
in the process they have created bigger problems... ;=((

I am very concerned that "big brothers" are flexing their mussles!
There has to be a better way then the "systematic blocking" of e-mail...
Does "innocent stuff" get caught in the "blocking process"?
I wish i could understand the "methodology" better, so i could comment 
more completely... but i'm concerned that these issues are apparently 
being decided by "the back-room techies" without full and open 
consultation with the other stakeholders.

In my book the greatest defense/insult to spam is the D)elete function!
But that probably doesn't help a mail-server that is about to collapse
under a spam load... ;)

j
.

On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Klaus Weide wrote among othger things:
> To the list maintainer (mostly):

> If it is true that the policy for accepting messages has changed

>  - on purpose, to avoid spam and other abuse:
>    Please consider changing back to the old behavior.
>    There has not been sufficient agreement on the list for this change.
>    (If there are technical reasons, please explain them.)
>    - If reverting to the old behavior is rejected,
>      let messages from non-subscribers at least generate some sort
>      of automatic response.

>  - by mistake:
>    Please correct the problem.

> [ I shall try to resubscribe if I see this message go through now. ]
>      Klaus
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;