1996-09-24 - Banning annoying users

Header Data

From: Daniel Miskell <DMiskell@envirolink.org>
To: sunder@brainlink.com
Message Hash: 70a8ccf0542b9554a1314f2c5c54bbe9c115a355c9c0ab82af68a7d3d07a4cd8
Message ID: <199609241158.HAA27269@envirolink.org>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-24 15:39:19 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:39:19 +0800

Raw message

From: Daniel Miskell <DMiskell@envirolink.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:39:19 +0800
To: sunder@brainlink.com
Subject: Banning annoying users
Message-ID: <199609241158.HAA27269@envirolink.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The
not allowing unsubscribed individuals to post is logical, for a time.  But
that basically outlaws anon remailers that don't allow you to send to an
account, and a lot of them don't, from my limited understanding.  Besides, if
we set up the list to ban people who are 'undesirable', instead of just using
our own killfiles to do the dirty work for the list, then what is to stop
someone from banning you?  Sure, you move on to another list, but, personally,
I wouldn't want it done to me, and so I would not do it to someone else.  But,
like I said, personal killfiles are more than encouraged.  It resolves these
kinds of conflicts a lot faster and cleaner than debating who and who should
not be banned.

---
Daniel.

--
If in fact we are the only intelligent life on this planet, why the fuck are
we in this goddamn mess?
--
Find my public key on the World Wide Web -- point your browser at:
http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html







Thread