| <<< Chronological >>> | Author Index Subject Index | <<< Threads >>> |
On Apr 5, 2007, at 17:22, Ed Sawicki wrote:
Jim Reid wrote:Can we please take this discussion elsewhere? The current thread is off-topic for this list and seems to be opening up an infinite number of rat-holes.Why is this off-topic?
Recent postings on this thread have centred around angels-on-pinhead debates about what is and isn't a legal definition of spam: a truly pointless exercise. And whether a contract takes precedent over criminal law or not. This is only of interest to the pedants and terminally sad. And it's not at all relevant to the RIPE anti-spam WG. Please consult the WG's charter and ask yourself if recent postings have truly been compatible with that.
Just because the thread is vaguely related to spam doesn't necessarily mean it falls within the remit of this WG of its list.
It's about a spam-related problem.
No. The discussion has spun off into rat-holes that will go nowhere. Like most "debates" about spam, the current thread is futile. It will just create lots of heat and *never* yield a positive outcome. Remember MARID?
So please take that "oh yes it is", "oh no it's not" dialectic somewhere else. It's gone way off at a tangent from the original posting. Which itself was inappropriate for this list IMO. This discussion should have terminated after Leo Vegoda's posting, which was pretty much the last message with useful content. [It also fully answered the original poster's question.] Everything since then has been worthless noise.
Let's kill this thread with extreme prejudice and try to keep a healthy signal to noise ratio in this list.
| <<< Chronological >>> | Author Subject | <<< Threads >>> |