On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 09:26:37PM -0600, John Fenley wrote
From: waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org
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?
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 <waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org>
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
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg