🚀 go-pugleaf

Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> > I'm happy to consider that, provided I get a response to the cases and
> > the outcomes that I presented for setting reply-to to the postmaster.
> 
> > Remember, no evidence has been presented that anyone has been tricked, or
> > any harm has resulted.
> 
> Yeah, right.  You tricked that fellow that *tried to apologise* and he seemed
> to think that you'd contacted his ISP.  I'd say you tricked him, and that 
> makes you a liar.

As I said, no evidence has been presented. Timothy said he thought I
had contacted his ISP. That may have been an assumption on his part. Or
he may have emailed to his ISP. Depending on what he emailed, his ISP
may have got back to him with a "what are you talking about" (which he
also assumed was a result of a complaint), or a reprimand (which I think
is really up to the ISP.

We don't know. Perhaps Timothy would like to enlighten us.
>
> > The point is not to "trick" people but to ensure that the message gets
> > through. Some people advocate that I should be contacting the postmasters
> > in the first instance. I think that is extreme, unjustified and unhelpful.
> 
> Be a man, Wayne.  If something annoys you, and you feel justified in 
> complaining, go ahead.  Do your own dirty work, don't be a dickhead.

You, and anyone else, is free to email me to suggest this. But my
evidence is that most postmasters, especially of large ISPs don't read
their email.



--
system@codeworks.gen.nz  Wayne McDougall ICHTHUS <*> Impeach President Clark!!
        A U C K L A N D   D E B A T I N G   A S S O C I A T I O N   (Inc)
Interested in debating, public speaking or adjudicating in Auckland?
Send me email or write to President@ada.org.nz, or ADA, P O Box 3233, Auckland