On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Paul Karagianis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> ... The anti-spam contingent in SPAM-L seems to be completely obsessed
>with a macho posture of burning-the-village-to-save-it ...

This statement is nothing less than an ad hominem attack on every SPAM-L
subscriber. As a subscriber to both LSTOWN-L and SPAM-L, a list owner, a
LISTSERV site administrator, and a university postmaster, I would like to
offer some rebuttal.

1. The SPAM-L FAQ <http://WWW.CLAWS-AND-PAWS.COM/spam-l/spam-l.html#faq>
   states:

        SPAM-L is a LISTSERV mailing list ... dedicated to "Spam prevention
        and Discussion". That means discussion of spam-prevention, not
        debating the merits (or lack thereof) of spam.

   While it is assumed that there are spam-friendly lurkers on SPAM-L, the
   list is, by definition, comprised of people who are "anti-spam".

2. You have to read only a few days' worth of SPAM-L postings to realize that
   the only point on which there seems to be general agreement among SPAM-L
   subscribers is "spam is bad". Almost everything else, including the
   definitions of "spam", "is", and "bad", seems to be debatable.

3. There are vocal extremists in the anti-spam community and on the SPAM-L
   list, just as there are vocal extremists on a whole host of issues.
   Stereotyping all SPAM-L subscribers as extremists who would destroy the
   'net in order to prevent spam is a gross oversimplification of the worst
   kind. My experience as a SPAM-L subscriber leads me to believe that the
   vast majority of SPAM-L subscribers are simply trying to find effective
   ways to eliminate spam without eliminating legitimate email.

4. Your mother should have told you not to talk about people behind their
   backs. Your complaints about the attitudes of some SPAM-L subscribers may
   - or may not - be valid, but your decision to tar all SPAM-L subscribers
   with the same brush, and to do it in this forum, rather than on the SPAM-L
   list itself, is an egregious breach of etiquette that borders on cowardice.

I, too, hope that "open subscription blacklist" never comes to fruition,
but if it does, and if you land on it, you won't get any sympathy from me.

--
Paul Russell
Senior Systems Administrator
University of Notre Dame