|
Posted by Matt Silberstein on October 29, 2005, 8:06 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:39:58 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>
Please note the unmarked snip here.
>>It is a good thing you are not ranting. But explain for others, and
>>try to avoid unmarked snips when you do so, how inability to send
>>messages with particular content is not a security issue? How is that
>>not an issue of availability of the data, one of the three legs of IT
>>security? You should do that by talking about the subject, not by
>>attacking me, not by name-calling, not by unsubstantiated and
>>incorrect claims, but by discussing the topic. AOL's content blocking
>>is a security issue.
>
>Spammers usually claim that sort of thing.
ROTFLMAO. I guess you never took a rhetoric course. You seem to take
to the fallacies rather naturally. Which of the things that I wrote
are what spammers claim?
>"DULLES, VA - Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - America Online continues to
> lead the fight against spam and as a result, AOL members are
> increasingly enjoying a spam-free email experience. Today, AOL
> announced that spam is down more than 85% on the service, as measured
> by member referrals, and AOL's anti-spam filters are blocking more
> than 1.4 billion pieces of spam each day, as compared to a high of
> 2.4 billion messages blocked in a single day in 2003."
Yeah, unsourced news reports are so authoritative. This looks like an
AOL press release. Are you in the habit of believing company press
releases? Or is just AOL you find so honest?
>Spam filtering is an imprecise art, if you have found URLS that trip
>their filters, leave them out. There are a number of reasons why
>messages are marked as spam, and servers refused access. All
>are valid.
All are valid? I am impress that you think that there are no false
positives. It is, according to you, absolutely valid to block access
to, say, breast cancer sites because they have the world breast in
them. And I like the "number of reasons". I had thought it was
possible I could get more information in this group. If "number of
reasons" is all you have, then you have nothing.
>If you have complaints about AOL take it up with them, or convince
>their clients to use another service provider.
I have already done the latter. And I know from experience it is
pretty futile to convince someone that an entry in a blacklist is
inappropriate. What I had asked, and you seem unable to either
recognize or help with, was whether or not that has changed over the
years.
>To avoid getting in a deeper hole, stop digging.
Digging what? I don't see that I am in any kind of a hole.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| 
XML site map