Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:19:53 -0500 From: Louis LeBlanc <leblanc+freebsd@keyslapper.org> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: this spam (Geez) Message-ID: <20011126161952.GB31370@keyslapper.org> In-Reply-To: <20011126071615.P15780-100000@localhost> References: <002201c17655$fbe26320$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <20011126071615.P15780-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/26/01 07:18 AM, David Kirchner sat at the `puter and typed: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >=20 > > While you may have decided that letting your users continue to get spam= is OK, > > that's your choice. However, in today's Internet environment, clearly = the > > Right Thing to do is for spam filtering to be centralized on the mailse= rver, >=20 > This is OK to do as long as you make it very clear to each user when > they're signing up that you are filtering their messages and you notify > them of the chance that legitimate e-mail could be caught by filters (it > happens). It's a good idea to allow users to opt-out of such filtering, > too (although the anti-spammers will probably rail me for that suggestion. > Heheh. opt-out. heheh.) Now, I was afraid this would turn into a holy war, and It looks to be headed down that path. No one can reasonably claim that letting your users get spammed is a form of censorship. Especially if they are allowed to opt out of the filtering process. Do I want to censor content on my computer? Da..rn straight. I have a child at home and I want to make sure she doesn't learn about certain things until I think she's ready. That's my job as a father. In spite of my Catholic upbringing (or maybe because of it?), I'm dead against any form of censorship. So long as censorship is defined as the prevention of a willful exchange of information between parties, in which no other party is exploited or harmed against their will. Is that a good enough definition? I'm not a lawyer, so I know someone out there will be inclined to expand upon that, but please don't. This is getting far enough OT. Anyway, No, I wouldn't rail you for your suggestion above, I think it keeps you out of the censorship crowd pretty well, while still offering protection to those users who have better things to do. Few people still pay a timescale for their internet access, but their ISPs do essentially pay for every second their customers are dialed up. It uses resources. When all their customers have to spend more time on the line to get all the spam filtered, this increases the level of resources that must be available. So, I still think ISPs are fully justified in simply saying 'your mail will be filtered to prevent spam from stealing ISP resources'. So long as they notify their users. The censorship issue is not appropriate (IMHO) to this discussion, tho. Aside from dragging this further down OT road, it is minor and easily avoided so far as it applies to the topic of spam. Sorry to everyone for dropping another slew of opinions (and that's all they are, no need to argue it because I'm stubborn :). I will follow this thread for at least a little while, but I'll endeavor to keep my 2 cents out of it from here on. HAND Lou --=20 Louis LeBlanc leblanc@keyslapper.org Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :) http://www.keyslapper.org =D4=BF=D4=AC Gravity brings me down. --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8AmuoeAPWYrNkRWIRAmvOAJ43wZdiBAxeqfjPt7rdD8ptjS3HUQCfdt4t Cplg63GqbHibFYykygddOko= =MVSP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011126161952.GB31370>