Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(April 1998)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: claire @ siberia . demon . co . uk (Claire McNab)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:29:49 +0100 (BST)
To: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <32473 . 893872726 @ monkeys . com>
References: Your message of Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:37:04 +0100. <199804291237 . claire . 98047294 @ siberia . demon . co . uk>
Reply-to: Claire @ siberia . demon . co . uk

On 29 Apr 98 at 10:58, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

> >It's targetting the wromg people, and it doesn't help.
> 
> Wrong on both counts.
> 
> The list participants (and their opinions) tend to have an effect
> upon the behavior of the list admin.

Ron, do  you really reckon that the best way to encourage them to
have an effect is to pour out 4-letter words, as you claim to do?
Have you ever tried asking nicely?

The *only* persons with you have a legitimate grievance are the 
listbomber and the list admin.  Flaming the list members is the same
morality as hostage-taking -- possibly effective, but deeply
repulsive.

The list members don't choose the MLM software, and don't configure
it: please leave them out of it.    If you want to try agressive
tactics (and yours breach the AUP of many ISPs), then please choose
your targets more selectively.

Saying that people don't get hurt is not true :(   Someone like you 
was subbed to a support list which I run.   His abusive rants were 
very upsetting to some ppl who were in a fragile state.  I count that 
as *real* hurt, especially since I've seen a good few ppl on support 
lists being rescued from suicide attempts by the prompt support of 
other listmembers -- which was available because the list is a safe, 
flame-free space, something that's imperilled by a flamer.    Just 
because the door isn't properly locked, there's no excuse for 
wilfully destroying that.

> I have tried to get _many_ list admins to add some trivial security
> to the subscription process for their lists via personal E-mail
> messages just between me and them, and in general I have found
> that they feel that have better things to do with their time
> (e.g. playing golf).  I attribute this to the fact that (a) they
> don't know me from Adam and (b) they don't really give a rat's
> ass about how _I_ think they should configure their lists.

If you are as rude as you claim to be, I'm not entirely surprised :(
I quite agree on the need for subscription confirmation, but honey
generally catches more flies than vinegar.  And do remember that for
many list admins, they have a stark choice between no list and one
without subscription confirmation.  I was in that situation myself: I
didn't like it, but no amount of abuse from anyone would change the
situation.

> >If you want a target for your anger, and you can't find the culprit...
> 
> You don't seem to understand.  And lits admin who is running a mailing list
> that blindly accepts forged subscriptions _is_ `the culprit'.
> As far as I'm concerned, they are every bit as guilty as the net-hooligans
> who create the forged subscriptions.

So target the list *admin* if you really want to go about it that 
way.  But leave the list members out of it.

Best wishes,
Claire

-- 
Claire McNab -- Claire @
 siberia .
 demon .
 co .
 uk


Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: MajorDomo Header/Footer insertion Web interface script.
From: Lazlo Nibble <lazlo @ swcp . com>
Next: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: murr rhame <murr @ vnet . net>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg @ monkeys . com>
Next: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg @ monkeys . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com