Chuq wrote:
> At 6:36 PM -0800 2/25/99, Michelle Dick wrote:
>
> > Or, rather they trusted the stewardship of the PAML owners.
> >
> > I have no beefs with topica per se, but watch out for what arguments
> > you use to defend their actions:
>
> So, if you trust PAML to list your list, and PAML trusts Topica to
> use the PAML list, are you saying PAML didn't have the authority to
> do so?
Nope. that's why I mentioned the stewardship of PAML. Vince's
arguments do not justify including lists without permision of each
list owner, getting permission from the owners of PAML does. It and
it alone is the reason it is OK. It's also why I mentioned I have no
beef with them. "no beef" means I have no objections with Topica's
actions. Or are you not familiar with that expression? :-)
> > These are all arguments that spammers use (but I have a remove
> > mechanism, but I don't know in advance who wants my stuff,
>
> Yeah, but Topica's works.
So? the arguments Vince gave still are invalid. They most emphaticly
are not why it was OK for them to lists the lists they did. The
*only* reason it was OK was because they had permission from the PAML
owners.
> Just because spammers abuse these things by claiming to have what
> they do not, you can't dump topica for actually implementing them and
> making them available.
I didn't dump them. Go back and reread my post. And even if spammers
did have working remove lists, it would not justify spamming.
--
Michelle Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] East Palo Alto, CA
Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List
