> So, here are the choices:
>
> 1. Save thousands of people from having to deal with multiple spams per day,
> at the cost of presenting a minor inconvenience to a few, or
>
> 2. Require thousands of people to receive and deal with spam (or to learn
> all about mail filtering), in order to avoid inconveniencing a few.
you have it backwards. all subscribers of the list are 'inconvenienced'
if we discourage legitimate contributions from folks who are not willing
to jump through arbitrary and time-consuming hoops that we impose on them
just because a few people insisted (even in the face of evidence to the
contrary) that they knew what was best for everyone else.
calling those hoops a 'minor inconvenience' is also misleading.
> Indeed, this is a lot like the arguments re NAT. There are the thousands of
> people it helps, vs. the few who are yelling that the sky will fall if it is
> not stamped out.
the people who are helped by NAT are also hurt by NAT. but they might not realize
that NAT is the reason that they cannot deploy IP telephony. they'll blame the
new application rather than the NAT because they've been brainwashed into thinking
that NAT is the right thing to do, and also because the guy who bought the NATs
in the first place is not going to admit that he was wrong.
Keith
