This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] Revamped spam blocking for this mailing list
Chris,
I never send my rantings apoplectic or otherwise, I just write them down
and leave them unsent in my Out box. I have lots of unsent rants...
I've got to say, though, I'm mildly annoyed by your insults, arrogance and
condescension.
My reading comprehension is fine and I know how to follow instructions.
Absent _compelling_ reasons to do otherwise, I do follow rules, both
on-line and "in real life." When I said I'd been inappropriately blocked, I
was referring to instances in which I was genuinely inappropriately blocked.
Relative to those of people I have observed around me over the 43 years of
my life here in the U.S., my personal sense of entitlement is quite low. My
expectations, based on on personal experience, are even lower.
I don't post "clueless" opinions, and, outside of missive like this, I
don't post much in the way of opinions at all. And I post far more answers
than questions on this list.
How would I know if I was going to be blocked if I did not attempt to post?
How could I report a "problem" to the postmaster if I had no evidence that
one existed? Your [ADMINISTRIVIA] posting did not state what had been
changed, just that you'd "... set up the cygwin and cygwin-apps mailing
lists to use some revamped spam blocking software ..." Your announcement
included no statement about what was or is the "bottom line" of blocking
for the Cygwin lists, nor did it include a reference to any other
information that might have been pertinent to the changes.
Frankly, I do not know what it is about my posting that warranted your
reply to it.
Sincerely,
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA
At 13:12 2002-03-17, you wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >This is just my personal opinion, obviously, but there wasn't enough
> >spam getting through of late to seem to justify messing with a working
> >system.
> >
> >The truth? I've been blocked inappropriately in the past, on this list
> >and others, and it is pretty much at the top of my list of pet peeves!
> >Perhaps it's part of the American psyche, but I become almost
> >apoplectic when I'm muzzled in any way!
>
>Yep. I don't know if this is "American" or not but it certainly is a
>wonderful illustration of a typical clueless sense of entitlement coupled
>with a usual "I don't know any of the facts but I have an opinion anyway"
>attitude.
>
> >The other truth? I'm writing this to see if I'm going to get blocked
> >under the new scheme or software you've instituted. Better on this
> >low-content message than on one I really want to be read.
>
>And, if you had been blocked what do you think would have happened? I
>asked people to send email to postmaster@cygwin.com. If you had sent
>email to that address, I would have read the email and worked on the problem.
>
>I'm sitting here now actively scanning the mailing list queues so that I
>will be aware of any problems as they occur.
>
>The bottom line still holds. If you're subscribed to the mailing list you
>can post. If you are not subscribed and are blocked by one of
>sourceware's RBL checkers (which also have not changed), then you get
>specific instructions for unblocking yourself in the bounce message.
>
>If you don't understand this, then check out the appropriate page at
>sources.redhat.com which describe how blocking occurs.
>
>Again, if it seems like the rules aren't being followed, then send mail to
>postmaster@cygwin.com and I'll look into it.
>
>And, if you feel yourself becoming apoplectic about any of this, then
>please send some nice venting email to all of the mailing lists that you
>are personally running in the proper way. You can rest assured that your
>apoplectic wisdom will be lost on me if you send it here.
>
>cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/