[Bloat] Publicly shaming those that can't respond back

[Bloat] Publicly shaming those that can't respond back

[Sean Conner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1320 bytes --]

Dave, running his own email server that MANDATES TLS, cravenly wrote:
>
> Example:
>
> Jan 27 17:16:11 mail postfix/smtp[10770]: 801CD21331:
> to=<oneofmystillannoyedcorrespondents@conman.org>,
> relay=brevard.conman.org[elided]:25, delay=67644, delays=67640/0.01/4/0,
dsn
> =4.7.4, status=deferred (TLS is required, but was not offered by host
> brevard.conman.org[elided])

  You elided the IP address but left the name visible.  You do realize that
the IP address is just a DNS lookup away, right?  That it's easy to see
that brevard.conman.org is 66.252.224.242.

> So this made it safer to temporarily make it mandatory, do email for a
> few hours, get who failed out of my logs, craft the email to those
> failing, then relax the defaults for starttls back to "may".

  May?  May?  oneofmystillannoyedcorrespondents@conman.org is right for
being annoyed at you, because there's no "may" about sending email to this
list (or to you, Dave).  It's TLS or pack sand to Gmail because
oneofmystillannoyedcorrespondents@conman.org refuses to run TLS (at this
time---Dave you seem incapable of listening to those who state it's not as
easy as you make it out in some cases).

  Great job making friends and influencing people, Dave.  Good job!

  -spc (No need to hide behind oneofmystillannoyedcorrespondents@conman.org)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1964 bytes --]

Re: [Bloat] Publicly shaming those that can't respond back

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> May? May? oneofmystillannoyedcorrespondents@conman.org is right for being
> annoyed at you, because there's no "may" about sending email to this list
> (or to you, Dave).  It's TLS or pack sand to Gmail

Dave, I think he's right.  Out of two evils, allowing non-encrypted mail
is preferable (and less hostile) than forcing people to hold their mail on
Google's servers.

-- Juliusz