1 |
On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:34:28 +0100 |
2 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:28:27 +0300, Daniel Iliev wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > 1. Trouble saving |
7 |
> > Will signatures help if a mailing list (ML) receives spam? |
8 |
> > No. The admins won't accept arguments like "Those mails weren't |
9 |
> > signed, it's not me". Signature or not the address gets its ban and |
10 |
> > that's it. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Is that true of every list? Do you know every list's owner or policy? |
13 |
|
14 |
No, not really but the whole time I had in mind only this list and |
15 |
those alike (anonymous, public and tech-oriented at the same time). |
16 |
I apologize if I didn't make it clear. |
17 |
|
18 |
> It's not only about spam and banning anyway. Someone could try to |
19 |
> discredit you by posting inflammatory, abusive, racist or otherwise |
20 |
> unacceptable posts in your name. |
21 |
|
22 |
Not my name, the name of the account. Those are not the same thing, |
23 |
especially in The Internet where everyone is anonymous by default. Some |
24 |
use other people's names, others use nick names etc. Our names in this |
25 |
list mean nothing. For example my account is expendable and I've |
26 |
registered it exactly with the idea to get rid of it if it gets flooded |
27 |
with spam. |
28 |
|
29 |
> If every post you send to the list is signed, those unsigned messages |
30 |
> lose credibility. By signing all messages, you are effectively saying |
31 |
> "If I didn't sign it, I didn't send it". |
32 |
|
33 |
Unsigned messages have no credibility anyways. There's no need to use |
34 |
your signature to imply it and actually you can't do that by design. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Of course, this all falls apart on lame listservs like Yahoo Groups |
37 |
> that strip all attachments, including PGP signatures. |
38 |
|
39 |
Not my problem. I don't use them. :) |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Best regards, |
43 |
Daniel |
44 |
-- |
45 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |