Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people
who still have a problem should investigate
http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ for an excell
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> --
>> A.3. Voting procedure
>> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
>> separate bal
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:04:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
>abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
[...]
> [1] If it's not, that's a bug in the constitution. Any quibblers who would
> like to play constitutional lawyer, please d
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
> things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
> collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people
> who still h
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.
Thats why I find Dan Bernsteins proposal[1] the most brillian
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
> with no quorum required to propose the resolution.
We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:59:32AM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> > expensive mode
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.
Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
deleting spam
On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
> > things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
> > collateral damage in
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
> > > things harder for legi
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html says:
"1. An "unbeaten set" is a set of candidates none of whom is beaten by
anyone outside that set. 2.
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >
> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
> > your
> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
>
> It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
> yesterday and today? If the debian serv
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
>> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
>> expensive modem connection.
>
> Most of the times you use pop
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,
I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.
***
Axiomatic Definition:
Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number o
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> >
>> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
>> > your
>> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
>>
>> It does not work. What about those italian sp
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>
> Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> issue.
agreed. However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the
amount of garbage delivered can be
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> > issue.
> agreed. However I believe that
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> >
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raul> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the
Raul> proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to
Raul> avoid that term if possible
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
> term-of-art.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
statement?
Here's my understanding:
The only place the constitution uses the word "d
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
> things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
> collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people
> who still
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.
Thats why I find Dan Bernsteins proposal[1] the most brillia
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:59:32AM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> > expensive mode
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
> with no quorum required to propose the resolution.
We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't
On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
> > things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
> > collateral damage in
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html says:
"1. An "unbeaten set" is a set of candidates none of whom is beaten by
anyone outside that set. 2.
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
> > > things harder for legi
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >
> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
> > your
> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
>
> It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
> yesterday and today? If the debian serv
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.
Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
deleting spam
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
>> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
>> expensive modem connection.
>
> Most of the times you use pop
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,
I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.
***
Axiomatic Definition:
Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number o
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> >
>> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
>> > your
>> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
>>
>> It does not work. What about those italian sp
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>
> Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> issue.
agreed. However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the
amount of garbage delivered can be
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> > issue.
> agreed. However I believe that
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raul> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the
Raul> proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to
Raul> avoid that term if possible
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> >
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
> term-of-art.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
statement?
Here's my understanding:
The only place the constitution uses the word "d
37 matches
Mail list logo
