[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Airport security [no such thing]
Dr.Dimitry Vulius K.O.T.M. wrote:
> Dale Thorn <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > Dr.D. Vulius K.O.T.M. wrote:
> > > > Nurdane Oksas <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > But think about this: suppose there is a couple, [email protected],
> > > and [email protected]. Suppose that Rev. Mallory does not like bob.
> > > Mallory forges a lot of emails like "I can still taste your sperm
> > > on my lips", that appear to originate from [email protected].
> > > Then, promptly, Mallory sends an anonymous alert to [email protected],
> > > warning her about naughty email activities of bob. Alice gets mad at him
> > > and divorces him.
> > > How would bob protect himself against such developments?
> >
> > Frame-ups are as old as time. The ones that work the best are those
> > that are the most believable. O.J., for example. Unless Alice is
> > unusually flaky or paranoid, she'll consider her options against the
> > time she has invested in Bob.
>
> Here's an interesting twist of Sandfort's moderation policy.
>
> My article was crypto-relevant and flame-free and was tossed to
> cypherpunks-flames.
>
> Igor's response to my article was also crypto-relevant and flame-free
> and was tossed to cypherpunks-flames.
>
> Dale's response did not quote me, so it made it to the censored list.
Is it really true that my response was tossed out as flames?
It was crypto-relevant.
BTW, this is a more than perfect illustration why rejections
based on "shitstrings" are completely inappropriate for moderating.
I have nothing again "grey lists", when moderators are alerted when a
message containing certain suspicious word arrives (the way it's done in
STUMP), but am opposed to autorejections (unless mods are mailbombed).
- Igor.