Re: New type of monstrosity / RFC Pedantry

[John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Groach wrote:

> https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
>
> Come on chaps and chapesses.  Nothing is going to be concluded between you 
> too.  And having the last word doesnt make one better than the others (and it 
> still doesnt make you right).
>
> Just agree that neither of you is going to convince the other or leave them 
> happy.
>
> Life is short....and this is silly.

Agreed.

RFC compliance is relevant to this list only insofar as it is a useful 
spam sign. SA is *not* an RFC-compliance-verification tool.

Whether or not "undisclosed recipients:" is valid per RFCs is off topic 
for this list, and is engendering a lot of ill will and increasingly 
personal attacks.

Ruga: if you can show that "undisclosed recipients:" occurs *significantly 
more often* in spam than in ham, the topic is germane to this list.

Warning to all: the banhammer is being warmed up. Please, everyone, just 
stop now, before it's too late.


-- 
  John Hardin KA7OHZ                    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
  jhardin@impsec.org    FALaholic #11174     pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
  key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products.
                           -- Arno Edelmann, Microsoft product manager
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  3 days until Abraham Lincoln's and Charles Darwin's 208th Birthdays