Re: unsubscribed

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:16:06 +0200, mouss <mouss@netoyen.net> 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 foo@example.com and
>foo-owner@example.com (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.

Do you need help?
In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related spamassassin.apache.org Links users Request more information about Pantek

Regards

Nigel Received on Wed Oct 17 21:54:53 2007