Please note that I have crossposted a copy of this to cypherpunks, since they appear to have been the primary "beneficiaries" of these phantasmagorical "subscriptions", as well as Spam-L where this is a topic of discussion due to the errant "subscriptions" that materialized out of thin air for so many people today. I invite you to come on down to spam-l ( http://spam-l.com ) if you would like to remove the high piched rhetoric I have quoted etensively below, and discuss ways to prevent another disaster like you had today with this "reconstruction". Since i have been unsubbed, I was unaware of most of this attack material: it was sent to me by someone still subscribed: I am answering it regardless of my subscription status as I don't take well to being called a liar, publicly or otherwise. I am truly curious if you have the moral fortitude to allow your listmembers to see this reply.

...

I've known Earl (the listmom) for two decades, and can tell you with certainty that he would not have added any addresses that were not subscribed to the list.

Regardless of how well or how long you may have known Earl, it is an absolute *fact* that he he added people who were not subscribers. Many of the addresses he restored included NON-subscribers who had crossposts from either cypherpunks or burning man lists. The most likely reason for this is he lost his list and went back through the archives and added every "From:" address /she saw in an attempt to recover it. Warning Will Robinson: "From:" does not equal subscribed - Earl made a *huge* error here, and is now compounding it by asserting that the error is on the newly mass-subscribed to prove that they were never really subscribers in the first place.

...

When I got on Pigdog-l in 1994 it required an email verification. One could not get on to the list without sending the proper command by email, receiving an authorization token to their own email address, and sending it back.

Good for Earl. He did it *right*, way back when it wasn't fashionable. The only problem is that (1) this is not 1994, (2) he doesnt HAVE that original list, so he's trying to "recover it" by scraping "From:" entries in archives, and (3) Earl even admitted himself that "[he] re-subbed them all, including some that probably shouldn't be subbed." that tells us that he KNEW his list was inaccurate when he did it. Add to this already incredible clusterfsck the fact that his list appears to have been gone for *years*, and that Earl clearly admits that he hasnt a clue who was and was not actually subscribed: "All: I re-scanned the mail archives to verify that I was only adding people who were subscribed to this mailing list from before we lost the subscriber list. If you're getting this message, that means you were once subscribed to the Pigdog mailing list. If you still can't remember subscribing, or if you think there was an error, or if you were subscribed but you since unsubscribed, please let me know and I'll be happy to remove you. I'm just trying to recover the list after a series of nasty server crashes, I am not trying to sign up names of people who don't want to be here." The proper way to do this, if you *must*, is to ask for re-subscriptions (see below), NOT to just force people onto your list and then put the onus on them to get off. Earl was at least honest that he wasnt totally sure he knew what he was doing. You on the other hand have absolutely *zero* doubts that you and Earl are *always* right and that your subscribers (both voluntary and forced) are *always* wrong: "I've been a listmom myself for over a decade and know that there is a special place in hell reserved for screaming brainless harpies that think some discussion list would be interesting, subscribe to it, and then the very next day have forgotten that they did so. It's probably more accurate to say that they have willfully "forgotten" because after they have proven themselves to be spammers by bombarding an entire list with whining about how they never added themselves in the first place." This is beyond merely ignorant (as in 'without sufficient knowledge of your topic' to argue any point successfully), it is also arrogant and wrong headed. Just because Earl had a COI list in 1994 (and maybe even in 2005?), doesnt mean he can just add people who havent heard from that list in YEARS. Still, despite a large number of simultaneous complaints, you continue: "Having publicly announced (by spamming thousands of people) that they are being "spammed" they find themselves in a position where it is dangerous to their ego to think back in time even one day and ask if that "subscribe" process they did the day before might have something to do with the emails they receive today." The problem with this argument is it is specious: not a single one of the persons complaining they are not subscribers subscribed "the day before", or even the YEAR before. Since you've already called each and every person who complained a liar, including me, SHOW ME THE MONEY. Lets see that COI I sent in, whether it was in 1994 or 2009. No record? No consent. You continue: "Faced with evidence to this effect," EVIDENCE? Did you say you had *evidence*??? Lets see it. SHOW ME THE COI! "rather than apologize or simply disappear after unsubscribing or being unsubscribed themselves, they become all the more shrill, and accuse the hapless list administrator of the most devious, underhanded motives and demand, in an email broadcast to thousands of unsuspecting victims, to be removed from the list. Sometimes they even claim that the unsubscribe mechanisms do not work." While your list administrator is most certainly "hapless", the complaints I have seen have NOT accused him/her of "the most devious, underhanded motives and demand", but of merely lacking enough skill to run the mailing list according to accepted and acceptable practices (which conveniently also stop complaints about spam. Gee. Imagine that?) You are making some pretty extreme statements about the motives of people you dont know - probably because they were never on your list to interact with in the first place - for the very reason you complain that the spamees are: "No, you're an ignorant blowhard who likes to hear him or herself type and who enjoys posturing without regard for fact. Which, ironically enough, makes you an excellent candidate for the Pigdog list." According to your own administrators statements and archives, he is trying to reconstruct a list that has been dead for *years*. At the point where you lose your list and fail to send mail for a reasonable period of time (open to debate, generally considered at *least* annually, plus occasional reminders of the subscription), you have lost your *consent* to mail to those people. None of those formerly subscribed people are now subscribers, because by losing the list you have unsubscribed them. Of course, this only covers those names that may *actually* have been [COI] subscribers: the people that were scraped into your broken list and expected to "simply disappear after unsubscribing" have zero reason to want to help you out by helping you clean your list. Why should they: you just spammed them all, and followed it up with a rant calling them all lazy, stupid, liars! Next time Earl or you tries this, at least try and skirt the edge: send out an email to those people you think may have been subscribers, and explain what happened: "We lost our list some time ago, we'd like to reconstitute it and reconnect with everyone, but we are not certain that all of the name we have were actual listmembers. If we sent you this by accident, we apologize - you will not hear from us again, and you need do nothing for that to happen. If on the otherhand you were a listmember, or would like to become one now, please respond to this email, GIVING US PERMISSION TO SEND TO YOU." What you and your friend just did is no different than Gevalia, Amex, or Wallace himself. Your arrogant "You ARE a subscriber, or you WERE one, because WE SAID SO" attitude makes you a defacto spammer, eligible for block on sight. //Alif (Also a listmom since 1994) -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin_at_mfn.org 0xpgp_key_mgmt_is_broken-dont_bother "Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." Joseph Pulitzer 1907 Speech