On Wednesday 31 May 2006 12:09, SLUG feeding waffles to the world allegedly
wrote:
<snipped>
> Yer, right, keep waffling and ignore the essential word here.
> Umm TRUST.
Oh OK, I missed it before because it was absent and not in caps.
So you trusted that no-one subscribed to the list just to harvest address?
You trusted no-one read SLUG on an insecure machine that could catch one of
the bajillion (thats a really big number for you non-maths type ;) ) viruses
which harvest addresses from locally stored mail archives?
You trusted that no-one would accidentally or intentionally cross-post
something from SLUG to another "less secured" mailling list?
Do I need to waffle on some more about at which point a trusted network
becomes an untrusted network (or maybe just put it in caps)?
>
> It might be kinda old fashion as the ethics of gordon gecko make a
> re-run, but at no stage did I give SLUG permission to widely publicise
> my email address.
Mr Geckos never went away, they mostly went into hiding from the feds. Some
faked their deaths in Majorca.
I understand the issue you are raising, I made my original reply not because I
thought it was invalid, but because I thought it (and a few others) was
(were) done in an over-the-top knee-jerk-reaction type way. As I said then,
spam seems to do that to some people.
Cheers,
Malcolm V.
--
"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied
with your opinions and content with your knowledge."
[Elbert Hubbard, "The Philistine"]
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
