[e2e] About email domains

[Matt Mathis]

Yea, I think we should automagically exclude the billion or so people
who have only @gmail, @hotmail or @aol addresses.  They can't possibly
contribute usefully to our conversation, because we are oh so much
smarter than that.

</sarcasm>

That said, gmail at least has a "mute" function so you can eliminate
ongoing distractions from any thread that has degenerated to the level
of the trolls and troll baiters.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure you can do this at home ;-)
>
> But assuming that everybody will filter the same people is a mental
> illusion.
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM, <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Oh, but it does.  at least the parts I own and pay for.  I get to filter
>>  what I like.
>>
>> /bill
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:49:51PM +0300, Pars Mutaf wrote:
>> > Real problem is: Who thinks that he has the right to filter email to an
>> > organization designing the Internet.
>> >
>> > as if Internet belonged to you ...
>> >
>> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > So I changed the subject, to match -
>> > >
>> > > I wanted to add, to that: I once had a research project with partners
>> > > in
>> > > China. We wanted to use such a policy for our own lists, but soon gave
>> > > up
>> > > because we found that many of our Chinese partners use such email
>> > > domains
>> > > *to get their mails across*. That is, they found emails from their
>> > > official
>> > > affiliation address to often be killed by spam filters or whatnot. And
>> > > the
>> > > domains included a big company and a big University.
>> > >
>> > > Thus, I think that such filtering would clearly be unacceptable.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Michael
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sep 16, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
>> > >
>> > >  Hi Ross,
>> > >>
>> > >> This is off topic no?
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >>
>> > >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Ross Finlayson
>> > >> <finlayson at live555.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>     > Even better, perhaps professional mailing
>> > >>>> lists like this should start
>> > >>>>     > rejecting postings from 'hobbyist' email
>> > >>>> addresses ("@gmail.com",
>> > >>>>     > "@yahoo.com", etc.)...
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Sigh, much as I basically agree with you, a number of our
>> > >>>> serious contributors
>> > >>>> also use gmail, etc, these days.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>  Not to mention the PhD students who wouldn't like to be excluded
>> > >>>> ;-)
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> Do these PhD students' schools not have their own domain name? :-)
>> > >>
>> > >> Note that it's possible to let gmail manage email to/from addresses
>> > >> that
>> > >> use other domain names.  See:http://productforums.**
>> > >>
>> > >> google.com/forum/#!topic/**gmail/tEaJstfhzeI<http://productforums.google.com/forum/#%21topic/gmail/tEaJstfhzeI>
>>
>> > >>
>> > >> The problem is not the 'gmail' service per se (provided that you
>> > >> don't
>> > >> mind your email being scanned :-).  The problem is the "@gmail.com"
>> > >> email address suffix, which advertises to the world that you're not
>> > >> particularly relevant.  (Ditto for "@yahoo.com", "@hotmail.com", "@
>> > >> aol.com" addresses, etc.)
>> > >>
>> > >> Ross.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >>
>> > >> http://www.content-based-**science.org<http://www.content-based-science.org>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://www.content-based-science.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.content-based-science.org
>