Softlayer spamming? Re: [squeak-dev] Squeak Oversight Board
meeting - 7/16/12
tom.b.rushworth at gmail.com
Tue Jul 17 17:16:07 UTC 2012
On 12/07/17 09:38, Chris Cunnington wrote:
> " If they ARE guilty of spamming however, I suggest that nuking them
> from orbit would not be too harsh a response :)."
> Yea gotta love a guy who quotes "Aliens". I'm more than happy with your
> desire to punish them for their transgressions, as long as you identify
> the server they are going to give us for free, and leave it running.
I'm not into punishment (despite the quote :) ), I just don't believe in
supporting spammers if there's an alternative. I think you're jumping
ahead of me...
1) We don't even know if this _is_ spam yet. I've been haphazardly
looking for a hosting service for the last year, this could have been
something targeted at my address because I visited some website that I
no longer even remember. (Like you said, a coincidence.) That's why
the "?" in the subject line of my email, and why I quoted their subject
line - to see if anyone else is getting the same "spam-like" message.
> Burke: 'Hold on a second. This installation has a substantial dollar
> value attached to it.'
> Ripley: 'They can bill me.'
2) Your original email about the board meeting said:
"There are several offers for free hosting available to Squeak"
So, _if_ others are getting this same spam-like message and it really is
from Softlayer (i.e. not a Joe Job), that's a good reason to look at the
other offers, and discount the Softlayer one.
> To take your argument to its ultimate, you're asking Squeak, the SOB,
> and me to be the conscience of the Internet. OK, fine. Let's say that we
> have to be the conscience of the Internet. Well... what happens to the
They don't end up supporting spammers and maybe receiving spam from the
Squeak web hosting provider ? :).
(And just to make it clear, my comment above is meant to be funny, and
not taken seriously.)
> We are part of the Etoys project, which is involved with the education
> of a million little boys and girls around the world. Aren't they worth
> the mild inconvenience of a spam message or two?
> Please, Tom... won't you think of the children?
Gotta love someone whose sees my quote and raises me another :).
Although, when you think about some of the things that phrase has been
used to justify, you don't end up in the best of company :).
More information about the Squeak-dev