response 254 of 293:

Sep 16 18:22 UTC 2002

I thought Grex maintained its own blacklist, instead of using someone
else's?

Personally, I use a blacklist service for one of my email accounts.  I do
take a cursory look at the subject headers before deleting the mail it
flags, though.  I don't see this as an infringement of anyone's rights.  I
also throw out mail that looks like credit card offers without opening it. 
Same thing.

response 256 of 293:

Sep 16 20:21 UTC 2002

        No, I didn't say that volunteers shouldn't be accountable for what they
do because they're volunteers, I said:

        Given that spam is a bit more than just an inconvenience for sites
with
 a limited amount of bandwidth, and that most spam-blocking efforts are run
 on a volunteer basis with only the absence of complaints as a reward, I don't
 think that looking for accountability is the right thing to be doing.

        Translated as much for public benefit as I can, "there are more useful
things to do than blame people".

response 258 of 293:

Sep 16 22:13 UTC 2002

        ?Grex is banning mail from a Founder's machine?

response 260 of 293:

Sep 16 22:34 UTC 2002

Grex may have its own version of the polytarp spam warming up:

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:24:03 -0400
From: Tomoko Reborn <tomoko2@cyberspace.org>
To: jmsaul@cyberspace.org

Hello
Nice day
see you
To be continued
Tomoko Zombie

Got two copies of that.

response 262 of 293:

Sep 16 22:43 UTC 2002

Already been squished.  It was just going to people as they logged in.

response 264 of 293:

Sep 17 02:12 UTC 2002

Cool.

response 266 of 293:

Sep 17 15:09 UTC 2002

        Mail from site that I was pretty sure was being blocked
has now started flowing again.
        Thank you for any attention given this.

response 268 of 293:

Sep 17 21:02 UTC 2002

(FWIW, I like Russ in person but his responses here always strike me as
pompous and insulting.)

response 272 of 293:

Sep 18 22:24 UTC 2002

As a refresher, here's the request I made in response 236:

>Will the Grex staff please:
>
>1.)    Unblock this site, and
>2.)    Inform the compilers of the spamblock list that their
>       information is out of date.

Somehow, Scott found this "attitude" insulting in #247:

>As a staffer I'm a bit insulted by Russ & Joe's attitude.  We act in good
>faith, and when somebody manages to wade through the piles of email to 'staff'
>the block will likely be removed.

(I tried to expedite matters because I knew that a bunch of Grexers
were being affected, and that traffic that people might find important
was being irretrievably lost.  Not knowing that Grex did not use an
outside blocklist, I thought that spreading this information to the
maintainer could help list members on other sites too.)  Then he added:

>However, if you're going to be a dick about this then so am I.  What system,
>and why is Russ desirous of hiding it?

This was a full day after I'd emailed staff (including Scott, I assume)
to tell them what site was being mis-blocked; my e-mail was almost a
verbatim repeat of response 236, with the site name included.  I hadn't
"hidden" a thing from anyone who mattered, he just hadn't looked.

Then he winds up with this:

>(FWIW, I like Russ in person but his responses here always strike me as
>pompous and insulting.)

To which I can only reply:  Scott, if you look for something hard enough
on the insistence that it HAS to exist, you're going to find it even if
it doesn't.  I'm not going to walk on eggshells because of it.

response 274 of 293:

Sep 19 02:49 UTC 2002

Frankly, I was puzzled at scott's ire in this thread, but I figured it 
would pass...

response 276 of 293:

Sep 19 13:44 UTC 2002

I understand entirely.  Given how hard staff works to keep things 
running, why should anyone be surprised when a staff person feels a 
little annoyed and on the defensive when users seem to insinuate that 
they aren't working fast enough, hard enough, or at all?