On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:40 AM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > In this particular case, the execution was clumsy, but the action was > entirely appropriate. We saw messages that were utterly irrelevant, > from an address that had never sent anything else, in a style that > strongly suggested it was a sock for a chronic troublemaker. Why > should we put up with that kind of nonsense? +1 to that. I've keept quiet in this case because it was such an obvious case of troublemaker that showed up. Can we let it go and move on since it seems like we actual agree but just need something to discuss? -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@xxxxxxxxx | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@xxxxxxxxxxxx