OK, last message from em on this subject as well. On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> > > You've just accumulated enough scar tissue from using bad UI > > > software so that you cannot recognize the pain anymore. > > > >That's non sequitur. > > and that's a classic debating technique to devalue the opponents argument > without any counterargument. OK, to finish the thought, then: It's not relevant because the camram system doesn't have any UI, at least in normal operation, so whatever I may think (or fail to think) about the UIs of other software makes no difference. If what you meant was: > ... you have a blind spot caused by over familiarity with technology ... then I'll concede that this is possible, but I also think you have a blind spot with respect to this particular technolgy: You're too bound up in believing it will succeed to see why it might fail. (That's a sometimes a good thing in an entrepreneur.) > I have turned off the ringer on one line and frequently ignore the other > line unless I see the caller ID is from a client. I hope very soon to put > up barriers on e-mail and if somebody wants to talk to me, it's sender pays > or I don't listen. Well, congratulations for having enough clients that you don't care about ever getting any new ones, then. I don't have that option, and I haven't seen any evidence that the majority of businesses are in your situation. > [...] I get mail without camram postage on it, you get a response asking > you to reply to a message. That reply releases your original > message. It's not original, there are at least three other similar type > tools out there. Yes, there are, and the main accomplishment of all of them is to double or triple the cost of the spam, not to the spammer but to the recipient and to everyone involved in the transmission of all the extra back-and-forth (spam, autoreply, bounce). They turn the recipients of spam into unintentional spammers, often of innocent third parties. And on top of that they triple the cost of the legitimate mail as well. > well, I think I've said as much as can be said. Thank you for giving me > additional input and insight that I can use in building a better argument > for camram. I was hoping to give you insight to use in building a better solution, not how to better argue for a solution I believe to be flawed. Nevertheless, I wish you good luck. _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
