From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: UDP/DNS in Emacs Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:57:08 -0800 (PST) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200204051057.g35Av8P01017@sic.twinsun.com> References: <200203311640.g2VGecR10784@aztec.santafe.edu> <1858-Fri05Apr2002130225+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018004422 9439 127.0.0.1 (5 Apr 2002 11:00:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:00:22 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16tRS9-0002S8-00 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:00:21 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16tRf8-00046r-00 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:13:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16tRRv-0002Fa-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 06:00:07 -0500 Original-Received: from alcor.twinsun.com ([198.147.65.9]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16tRP3-0001wX-00 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 05:57:09 -0500 Original-Received: from sic.twinsun.com ([192.54.239.17]) by alcor.twinsun.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g35Av8BZ031233 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:57:08 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: (eggert@localhost) by sic.twinsun.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g35Av8P01017; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:57:08 -0800 (PST) Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <1858-Fri05Apr2002130225+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2387 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2387 > From: "Eli Zaretskii" > Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:02:26 +0300 > > All I can say is that to me, this blacklisting sounds akin to racism: Umm, let's not go overboard here. I don't read most of the physical mail that comes in over my doorstep. Most of the time I don't even read the return addresses on the envelopes. This policy does cause some problems for me, but all things considered it's better for me than wasting time actually reading the stuff. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call my policy "akin to racism". On the contrary, I wish I could use a semiautomated blacklist procedure on my physical mail, so that I could read it more efficiently, and miss fewer important pieces of mail. Like most people, I'm not wealthy enough to afford a personal secretary. I don't think everybody should use my policy, but I think it's appropriate for many non-wealthy people who get too much mail and have too many other things to do. (Now, if I could only do my _taxes_ the same way. :-)