I'm sorry, I know I said I wasn't going to be lured into another
exchange in this thread, but I can't help it...
On Monday, January 12, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
blacklists and run his systems there.
In other words, because some ISP with whom he has NO relationship has
deemed his own ISP spam-friendly, he should abandon his ISP, whether
*he* thinks they are spam-friendly or not. The words that come to mind
to describe this sort of arrangement are "cartel," "blackmail," and
"extortion." It is also a perfect example of an assertion I made
before, which is that blacklists are being used by the large ISP's as a
tool for consolidation in the ISP market. When RoadRunner blocked my
ISP, the *only* thing they were helpful about was offering to help me
get "better" Internet service by changing ISPs.
Blacklists also, quite clearly, don't work to eliminate spam.
No honest person who actually looks at spam agrees with that.
As I've made clear, *I* agree with that. Given the exchanges that
preceded this, it sounds like you are asserting that I -- and all the
other people who have argued against you in good faith on this list --
are dishonest. Is everyone who disagrees with your conclusions
necessarily dishonest? If so, why are you wasting time talking with
us? -- Nathaniel