Oh, please tell me you're not going to keep posting pointers to your previous postings until everyone agrees with you. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shelby Moore" <coolpage@earthlink.net> [deleted down to ] > > Before I respond to your continuance of your argument, I *respectfully* remind that I already refuted the whole line of criticism you are continuing in this post, when I rebutted your last post in this thread: > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22139.html > > In case any one missed it, [deleted down to] > > > No that is not the stated goal of this thread I started. I already rebutted that whole link of criticism here: > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22139.html > > Look for the section that starts with: > "Your point is that it is futile to define a protocol..." > > > And here: > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg22129.html > [deleted down to] > > > The links to the previous posts are above which state that is not our goal. You have been told that at least 2 or 3 times already. > [deleted down to ] "pull"....rather than repeat my entire logic here, please read the linked posts above in entirety. > [deleted down to] > > And COVERT has nothing to do with my proposal as I've detailed ad nauseum in the above linked posts. > [deleted down to ] > > Again read the linked posts above more carefully. With a different model of spam, we aren't stopping abuse, we are merely increasing detection by having a better model of the signal. > > [deleted down to] > > > This thread is not proposing that. See above. > >