Subject: Re: [Asrg] Legal Suggestions ....

From: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:26:37 -0600

>From: [email-masked]
>On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 07:01:45PM -0600, John Fenley wrote
> > Personaly I think it is the recipients responsability to block their
> > own spam.
>
>   And while we're at it, let's scrap the police force.  I'm sure you
>feel that it's ever 80-year-old-granny's responsibility to protect
>herself against burglars.

If you make a decision to filter your mail, it is your decision and you have 
taken responsability. I dont think a third party should have the right to 
make those decisions for me. Isn't that obvious?

Commercial spam blocking can hardly be compared to a police force, it is 
more like a protection racket. It does nothing to solve the problem, people 
are still getting "robbed", and the people who do the blocking become as 
dependant on spam for revenue as the spammers. Stopping spam is what they 
want least, as it would put them out of buissiness.

>
> > I feel that any system to block mail, that is not agreed to by the
> > recipients, should be illegal.
>
>   If an ISP advertises spam-blocking as part of their system, would that
>be sufficent for you ?

Yes, if the isp does not block messages passing through their system to 
non-customers. Here in utah there are many isps that advertise that they 
block adult content, and msn advertises it's spam filtering heavily.

John Fenley

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Daniel Feenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:31:19 -0400 (EDT)

> block adult content, and msn advertises it's spam filtering heavily.

Huh? Why would non-customer mail flow through a system? Is every ISP to be
required to run an open relay? Or are you saying that an ISP can't filter
spam for customers of customers? That would just be another way of
preventing ISPs from purchasing filter services, which would deprive them
of the most effective method of responding to their customers demands.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:58:13 -0400

On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 09:26:37PM -0600, John Fenley wrote
> If you make a decision to filter your mail, it is your decision and you 
> have taken responsability. I dont think a third party should have the right 
> to make those decisions for me. Isn't that obvious?

  If the customer calls the ISP and *DEMANDS* that spam be blocked, the
ISP pretty well has to  rely on 3rd-party lists.  Let's make the
"3rd-party" issue clear.  If customer wants spam blocked, and doesn't
give a detailed technical description, then the ISP should have latitude
in deciding *HOW* to implement customer's request that spam be blocked.

> Commercial spam blocking can hardly be compared to a police force,
> it is more like a protection racket. It does nothing to solve the
> problem, people are still getting "robbed", and the people who
> do the blocking become as dependant on spam for revenue as the
> spammers. Stopping spam is what they want least, as it would put
> them out of buissiness.

  That may be the case for the big commercial outfits.  I can, and do,
use the services of SPEWS, Osirusoft, coutries.nerd.dk, and verious
others *WITHOUT PAYING A SINGLE PENNY*.  Indeed many of the bigger
commercial outfits include an MTA's presence on the above free lists as
part of their spaminess scoring algorithm.

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will
eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure,
and has a lower TCO, than linux.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg