|
|  |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: RE: RE: Antispam message
I understand this this form of anti-spam is obnoxious, and I'll see what I
can do about it. But we should not go away from this as anti-anti-spammers.
One reason this list has not been that affected by spam so far is that we
have an anti-spam program running here which has blocked quite a
few messages from getting onto the list. I don't know if any of these
spam messages were written by the authors of the anti-spam software
trying to build up sales--I'll leave that speculation to the cynics out
there!
But this thread is starting to sound like spam.
m.p.
Richard Williams wrote:
At 11:11 AM 4/19/2006, Nick Cox wrote:
In the limit, this kind of behaviour would mean
that each of us must send every message to a new recipient
_twice_, and I join firmly with Al Feiveson in just
not wanting to do that.
To clarify, after you have responded _once_ by saying you are not a
spammer, the antispam program leaves you alone after that.
Nonetheless, it is a nuisance to ask potentially hundreds of people to
send you that message, particularly since people will often be afraid
they are falling into some sort of trap. I can see the purpose behind
such a program but people who have it should not sign up for
listserves, especially when a digest alternative is available. If
Notre Dame adopted such a program today, I am sure our computing
office would have at least 100 complaints by tomorrow!
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
