On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 07:49:27PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:30:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Adam McKenna wrote: > > > The arguments are facile and specious, I do not intend to waste my > > > precious time responding to them. > > That's a shame. I don't believe Karsten to be in the habit of putting > forward specious arguments.
Well, let's see, I'll try to be brief: #0, #1, #2 and #11 are basically opinion and rhetoric. Karsten has stated that he has a 'religious' objection to CR, and I'm not willing to have a debate about it. I've already noted some of the places that Karsten can go if he wants a debate. #3 blames CR for actions taken by an ISP (IOW, user configuration error). #4 claims that CR is less effective without giving any empirical data to back up that claim. #5 claims a high false positive rate without giving any empirical data to back up that claim. #6 singles out CR for a DOS attack that all autoresponders and vacation programs, as well as some MTA's are vulnerable to. In addition, the effect of such an attack would still identify the original sending machine through the headers of the quoted message, so it would basically be equivalent to mailbombing someone from your own machine. #7 does not apply to TMDA #8 does not really make any sense at all. It seems like he is saying that spammers might start to send out fake confirmation requests in order to harvest e-mail addresses. This seems far-fetched at best. #9 just sounds like a threat. #10 blames CR for user configuration errors (failing to set up a proper whitelist) --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
