From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: gnu-emacs-help news->mail gateway Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:55:10 +0200 Message-ID: <83pqi2wpw1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <82pqi3vbjf.fsf@gmail.com> <83ipnvxxfz.fsf@gnu.org> <83wrcbw4vk.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318409830 20052 80.91.229.12 (12 Oct 2011 08:57:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: nsivaram.net@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tim Cross Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 12 10:57:06 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RDucb-0007Ff-Fx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:57:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38403 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDucb-0002eY-5M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:57:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38489) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDucY-0002eO-8Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:57:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDucW-00066j-SN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:43123) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDucW-00066X-KW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:57:00 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LSY007003D9GX00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:55:09 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.51.78]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LSY006D93FWQ880@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:55:09 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:144964 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:29:56 +1100 > From: Tim Cross > Cc: nsivaram.net@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >=20 > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote= : > >> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:39:43 +1100 > >> From: Tim Cross > >> Cc: Sivaram Neelakantan , emacs-devel@gn= u.org > >> > >> Still misses the point. With mail lists, you MUST provide a legi= timate > >> email address. > > > > You already did, a thousand times, when you posted here. =A0The 1= 001 > > time doesn't really matter. >=20 > Irrelevant. I don't see why. > > And I talked about the amount of spam on GNU lists not by mistake= , but > > on purpose: the amount of spam in news groups is by far larger. = =A0So > > what if it doesn't get to you by a protocol other than email? > > >=20 > There is a big difference. In the case of newgroups, I choose to go > there and if that means having to deal with spam, it is my choice. > With email, I do not choose to receive spam. I don't see any big difference. In both cases, you view the summary lines before you decide whether to read the body. In both cases, you can decide not to read it if it is obviously spam. > >> It is irrelevant whether the lists you subscribes to > >> gets spam or whether its spam filter is good enough to filter sp= am > >> out. You don't =A0know for certain if people subscribed to that = mail > >> list are not getting spam directly to their inbox i.e. not via t= he > >> mail list, but directly to the address they used in subscribing = to the > >> list. > > > > Well, I post to many lists, but get very little spam. =A0So I thi= nk your > > fears are greatly exaggerated. >=20 > Ah, the old 'it doesn't happen to me so you must be wrong' argument= eh? What's wrong with it? My name and address are all over the place on the Internet, so I think my example is very relevant. > Even in this thread, we have one other post who states that > subscribing to a list resulted in a significant increase in spam - = so > that would be 1 all I would like to hear numbers that are behind the "significant increase". It could be that a _relatively_ large increase is actuall= y small in absolute numbers. And after that, I would again compare it with the amount of spam you see on news groups. > >> This is the big difference between mail list based collaboration= and > >> newgroups or web forums. With the latter, you don't need to prov= ide a > >> mail address. > > > > If you still believe in the year 2011 that withholding an email > > address will make you invisible and unreachable by spammers, then= , > > well, my sympathies. > > >=20 > Wow, thats a pretty disappointing level or arrogance. You can keep > your sympathies thanks, not interested. I don't understand the reason for the hostility.