On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:16:06 +0200, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Rob Sterenborg wrote: >> Steve Ingraham wrote: >> >>> I cannot help but comment on this post. >>> >> >> Neither can I. >> >> >>> I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list >>> (along with several others) for the purpose of asking questions of >>> you experts out there because I do not fully understand how it is >>> working. By all accounts everyone of you out there would label me >>> as a novice. The truth of the matter is I am a novice. As the >>> saying goes; "I know enough about this stuff to be dangerous". >>> >> >> Sorry, but this is the SpamAssassin list and the subject has nothing to >> do with "how it's working". If the OP had a question about "how it's >> working", he'd get an answer - I'm quite sure of that and I think you >> know that. >> >> This specific thread has become a rant because the OP did not show that >> he searched for himself first on how to do something simple: unsubscribe >> from this list. If he put the least effort in finding information on how >> to do that (how hard can it be to just go to the SA website and click >> "Lists" to find the info?), he wouldn't have sent the email that started >> all this. >> > >A lot of people don't see the difference between [EMAIL PROTECTED] and >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (replace "owner" by "unsubscribe", "admin', >'request", ... depending on the list). They think these are the same >addresses. you can't blame them, really. > ><nasty idea> >for someone to post, he must subscribe, then unsubscribe, then >resubscribe. only then can he post a message. Unfortunately, even this >won't work (besides annoying us with an N steps procedure) as people >will anyway forget... ></nasty> > >I have already seen message saying "Please help me unsubscribe from your >group...blah blah", and this was a reply to to group message, which >signature contains the procedure to unsubscribe! (so if the guy just >read the message before hitting the send button...). In short, he quoted >a message that responds to his question. > >but if people were to search for information effectively, they wouldn't >buy from spammers, and that alone would reduce spam! > >> >>> What I would like to say by posting this is; why don't all you experts >>> out there relax a bit? I, for one, acknowledge your superiority over >>> >> me >> >>> in this spam stuff. >>> >> >> I don't think this has anything to do with anyones "superiority in this >> spam stuff" (certainly not mine as I'm not). This has something to do >> with willing to take the effort and finding things out for yourself >> instead of just doing something and bother others with it (well, in this >> case it would be "bother" I suppose). >>
Having started this in the 1st place by questioning why users didn't check the headers, I'd like to apologise to anyone who's taken offence. My comment was just that, a comment. Several of the responses have been of the 'we use it for quick help' variety; which is fine and something I personally have no problem with. For it to get blown up to this proportion seems a little over the top all things considered. So, for any that took offence from my post, again, I apologise. I still think checking mail headers is a basic part of manual mail checking but hey, I guess others feel differently. Live and let live. Regards Nigel
