>Some of us keep hopping back and forth
>between the specific instance and the general case
>as if they were interchangeable, when the whole
>point (for others of us) is that this *instance*
>is neither typical spamming nor necessarily evil.
I think that the crux of the matter, in this case, is the fact
that the behavior in question came from a source which (IMHO)
should have both known better *and* given forewarning.
Sure, you'll see the occasional schmo @
com or smith @
pulling down a subscriber list; those have to be evaluated on an in-
dividual basis. On the other hand, I *expect* the serious online
vendors (like digital.com) to be aware of the sensitivity of fellow
One must wonder how our counterparts within DEC would react if
one of us just started winkling out every listserver in the
digital.com domain. Does anyone here remember the mini-furor
about the "not for the public" anonymous FTP site at SRI?
I wasn't hit by digital.com in this one, but I would have
expected a bit of 'professional courtesy.'