You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: RIPE32 Anti-spam WG minutes (draft 1.1)

  • From: Herman Van Uytven < >
  • Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:43:45 +0100

At 17:46 9/02/1999 +0100, Ragnar Lonn wrote:

Sorry, can we get back to what was the original question: who can be
contacted to make changes to this text.
If we do not have a contact, it is useless to do the dicussion here.
Since we are mostly system admins, I do not think we are the right people
to make juridical text.

>On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Piet Beertema wrote:
>>     	1) I don't want UCE in general, except when it's about
>>     	   "cars". That's why I suggested to allow or require
>>     	   keywords in an X-UCE header line.
>>     Why don't you sibscribe to a announcement mailing list
>>     about cars in that case ? Or visit their web page.
>> Can we please stop starting the same discussion
>> and arguments over and over again? I've argued
>> before that there are cases where people *are*
>> interested in UCE.
>I think the problem with this mailing list is that it is populated by
>system administrators with a very confined view of what UCE is (UCE = more
>work for them) and what should be done with it (it should be abolished).
>We can rant on about how terrible UCE is all we want here in our closed
>little forum and it won't mean a thing in the end because noone listens
>to fanatics. If, however, we agree that UCE has a right to exist, we might
>get an opportunity to give our opinion on *how* it should exist and that
>is better than being ignored because of lack of ability to compromise
>and/or tunnel-vision. Nothing is completely black and white. Most UCE is
>clearly worthy of contempt but it is, like Piet says, wrong to think
>there's only one kind or that noone in the world wants it. We're clearly
>not fit to represent the majority of the population here.
>  /Ragnar

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>