From: Brad Templeton (brad@templetons.com)
Date: Wed Mar 01 2000 - 12:24:46 CST
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 10:01:36AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <20000229111352.G15303@main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com> writes:
>
>
> >On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 12:53:37PM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> >> But, as has been pointed out, there is hardly any way to enforce it (well
> >> injectors might be able to catch it sometimes, but I don't think other
> >> agents should even try).
>
> >Why should they not try, if it is their wish to do so? Or rely on a
> >NoCem-bot to do the work for them?
>
> No reason at all why they shouldn't try. But MY ADVICE to them (which may
> be different from YOUR ADVICE) would be not to do it. That is all I was
> saying.
>
But why not? If we do it, it means that there is no spam that is
not either illegal, from a rogue site, subject to some non-rogue site's
TOS enforcement, or ending in .invalid. That sounds good to me.
Ask people the #1 problem on USENET today and I know what they'll say.
There is a lot more we could do about it, but this is a simple thing
and if we refuse to do even that, what are we here for?