On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Groach wrote:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
Come on chaps and chapesses. Nothing is going to be concluded between you
too. And having the last word doesnt make one better than the others (and it
still doesnt make you right).
Just agree that neither of you is going to convince the other or leave them
happy.
Life is short....and this is silly.
Agreed.
RFC compliance is relevant to this list only insofar as it is a useful
spam sign. SA is *not* an RFC-compliance-verification tool.
Whether or not "undisclosed recipients:" is valid per RFCs is off topic
for this list, and is engendering a lot of ill will and increasingly
personal attacks.
Ruga: if you can show that "undisclosed recipients:" occurs *significantly
more often* in spam than in ham, the topic is germane to this list.
Warning to all: the banhammer is being warmed up. Please, everyone, just
stop now, before it's too late.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products.
-- Arno Edelmann, Microsoft product manager
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 days until Abraham Lincoln's and Charles Darwin's 208th Birthdays
