Dr.Dimitry Vulius K.O.T.M. wrote:
Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dr.D. Vulius K.O.T.M. wrote:
Nurdane Oksas <oksas@asimov.montclair.edu> writes:
But think about this: suppose there is a couple, bob@household.com, and alice@household.com. 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 Cindy@phonesex.org. Then, promptly, Mallory sends an anonymous alert to alice@household.com, 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.