Re: Inexpensive anti-spamware/anti-verminware tactic

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's another new guise for the "just hit delete" argument.  It's false, 
> of course.  The user does not have full control over incoming storage, 
> since the user does not directly control what is _put in_ that storage.  

Indeed, however in general they have control over the problem. They
simply delete messages from the inbox and it is no longer full. This
is clearly not perfect but it's much better than the IM2000 situation.

> JR> The user has little-to-no control over outgoing storage.
> 
> False.  The user has full control over outgoing storage in IM2000 since
> he/she directly determines (by sending messages) what is put in that storage;
> and since he/she is paying the message store for it, he/she also of necessity
> has control over what is retained in that storage.

OK, so your argument is that if you send emails to people who then
don't delete them, it's your own damn fault? Or that you're supposed
to delete outgoing emails that you don't know if the recipient has
finished with? Or you're supposed to, what, email them and ask them if
they have finished with the previous message yet? (Oh, except if your
outbox is *really* full I guess you'll have to telephone them
instead.)

> JR> Yeah, users'll be *real* happy about being told "you can't send
> JR> any more mail to anyone until some of the people you mailed in 
> JR> the past delete it, maybe you could ring them all up and ask 
> JR> them nicely".
> 
> That's a mischaracterisation and a straw man.  Read the proposals.

It is neither, and I have. You don't appear to be very good at this
whole "debate" thing. You need to actually explain *why* something is
not true, simply saying "that's not true" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.