🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:20:59 GMT, Mike Stump <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <K0s26.6731$Sl.349652@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
>Harney <gharney@clark.net> wrote:
>>In article <31q26.6597$W76.112666@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>>Typical ORBS nonsense, IMHO.
>>
>>What is nonsense about this?  Should people who use @home email servers be
>>concerned?

Absolutely...see www.orbs.org...orbs claims that blocking legitimate email
is ok if a site is on their shit-list.  Also claims that people who hate
spam will not be upset about lost legitimate email and implies it also
will apply to important or "unportmant" email.

ORBS claims lost email is not their problem but the problem of sites on
the orbs shit-list.  The gun dealers are not guilty of anything so stop
harrassing them.

>
>Alright John, please pick an X, where X is the size of this next flame
>war.  8000?  1000?  3?  :-)
>
>To the original poster, please see .*ORBS.* on ba.internet on
>www.deja.com, surely you can find a 8000+ message thread that explains
>this in more detail that you can stand.
>
>I'll resist the temptation.

All one need to do is to look at the www.orbs.org for their claims and
faq; the ORBS claims of being "innocent" regarding people's lost email
is the same type of claim as gun dealers, liquor dealers, bars, and
even tobacco companies have used.  If ORBS is really "innocent", then
narcotic suppliers are also innocent since the narcotics is just supplied
and it is up to the purchaser etc....