Airport security [no such thing]

[Igor Chudov @ home]

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