another rfg reply

another rfg reply

[Angela Marie Thomas]

Please enjoy the latest installment.

FYI, Payton aka zippy@wonderslug.com is my ex.  He lets me use
his box.  The phone number listed is his.  It's also apparently
his fax machine and TiVo.

--Goddess

------- Forwarded Message

Return-Path: rfg@monkeys.com
Delivery-Date: Fri Feb  4 16:51:17 2005
Return-Path: <rfg@monkeys.com>
X-Original-To: angela+sw@wonderslug.com
Delivered-To: angela+sw@wonderslug.com
Received: from segfault-outgoing-helo.monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [66.60.159.24])
	by foam.wonderslug.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4AE7CE3A7D; Fri,  4 Feb 2005 16:51:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF22954E5;
	Fri,  4 Feb 2005 16:12:21 -0800 (PST)
To: angela@wonderslug.com
Cc: angela+sw@wonderslug.com
Subject: Re: Outage of gcc.gnu.org / sourceware.org / sources.redhat.com 
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:03:20 -0800.
             <20050205000320.CA47DE3A98@foam.wonderslug.com> 
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:12:21 -0800
Message-ID: <34680.1107562341@monkeys.com>
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0-r20550 (2004-05-28) on 
	foam.wonderslug.com
X-Spam-Report: -6.0 USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO   User is listed in 'whitelist_to'
	1.0 BODY_ENHANCEMENT2      BODY: Information on getting larger body parts
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0001]
	0.1 DRUGS_ERECTILE         Refers to an erectile drug
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_ENHANCEMENT2,
	DRUGS_ERECTILE,USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=no version=3.0.0-r20550
X-Spam-Level: 


In message <20050205000320.CA47DE3A98@foam.wonderslug.com>, you wrote:

>
>> #1)  Who are you?  I have never even heard of your company/organization
>>      before today.
>
>I am one of the overseers of sourceware.org, also known as
>sources.redhat.com, also known as gcc.gnu.org, also known as
>ecos.sourceware.org.  I'm a member of the group responsible
>for the maintenance of the system.

Fine.  Why was that fact not mentione in the original (spam?) message?

>> #2)  Why are you e-mailing me this spam?
>
>We emailed you notice that the the system above is unavailable and
>hence the services you are subscribed to are unavailable.

Can you be more specific please?

Are you claiming that THE MAILING LISTS that I subscribed to are non-
operating at the moment?

The ``announcement'' message that I received seem to suggest that only
the freeware *file archive* (FTP server(s)?) were currently down.  There
was no mention of any MAILING LISTS being down.

Are or are not the mailing lists down?

>This is
>a courtesy to the gcc.gnu.org community.  My personal contact
>information was provided to facilitate answering questions about
>system status while the mail server is unavailable.  This was done
>in the past when the system was unavailble for extended periods of
>time and the community appreciated it very much.

I prefer to have a contact e-mail address for the actual persona who sent
the message.

You did not send the message.  Thus, a ``fishy'' e-mail from one domain
that I never even heard of before (ecoscentric.com) referring me to some
mystery personal in ANOTHER domain that I've never heard of before
(wonderslug.com) and that has no valid phone number listed in WHOIS
makes everything about the original message not only ``fishy'' but down-
right spammish.

>> #3)  Where and when and how, exactly, did you obtain my e-mail address?
>
>You are subscribed to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org.

That is correct.  And if you wanted to reach me as a member of that list,
why didn't you just send e-mail TO THAT LIST?

>> You don't _have_ to answer.  But regardless, I'll be having a talk with
>> rms about your spamming activities.
>
>By referencing rms you acknowledge that you do indeed know of
>gcc.gnu.org

I have never denied it.  I am proud of my past and present association with
GNU software.

>and hence cannot claim you have never heard of the organization before.

I have most certainly heard of both "gnu" and "redhat" before.

I have never heard of *YOU* before!

I have never heard of "ecoscentric.com" before!

I have never heard of "wonderslug.com" before!

>I find it curious, then, that you consider this spam.

It _is_ spam.  _I_ didn't ask either you or anybody else to mail me OFF-LIST
with what YOU consider to be ``urgent and extra special announcements''.

If I feel a sudden need for a steady stream of ``urgent and extra-special
announcements'', then I'll just turn off my local spam filters and
within 6 hours I will be hip-deep in ``urgent and extra-special announcements''
about discount Viagra and penis enlargement pills, thank you very much.

If you wanted to contact everybody whose e-mail address is subscribed to
a given GNU mailing list then you have darn well send your message TO THE
MAILING LIST, just like all of the rest of us mere mortals do.

Do you have a problem with that?

>Please feel free to contact him.  If he feels our communication is
>in error, we will be happy to keep the community in the dark rather
>than act as responsible maintainers for the system.

A part of being ``responsible'' is to be ``responsible'' enough to not
put your own arrogance above the needs and concerns of the audience you
are addressing, i.e. being responsible enough _not_ to place _your_
judgement about what is and what isn't an ``urgent extra-special announcement''
above the judgement of all of the vict^H^H^H^H ... er... recipients of
your ``extra-special announcement''.

In short, I am a big boy and I can decide for myself what is and what isn't
an ``urgent important announcement'' TO ME.  But when you contact me OFF-LIST
you are, in effect, asserting that your judgement is superior to mine when
it comes to deciding what information I need and what information I don't
need.  And that exact arrogance is one that all of the spammers also share.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  If you _SERIOUSLY_ wanted to be a ``resposible'' member of the
Internet community, then why don't you start by being ``responsible''
enough to put a WORKING phone number into your domain name WHOIS record?

Or do you prefer to play the same kinds of ``catch me if you can'' games
that the spammers play?
more rfg fun
Apparently, you do, because you were too arrogant to even give me your
phone number when I asked for it.

Just how completely arrogant is THAT??

Why didn't you just cut to the chase and write me back saying ``I'm sorry
Mr. Guilmette, but MY time is clearly more valuable than your's, so I
refuse to talk to you on the phone, because you are a peon, and I am
a Godess.''

------- End of Forwarded Message