On 6/12/07, Jochem wrote: > > > I choose my ISPs more carefully then that.
You hope. That is the point of subscribing to a blacklist, isn't it? The point of a blacklist is to block offending emails, i.e. spam, but allow legitimate mail through. This list does not accomplish that objective. It won't. NANA* is not for complaining, it is for getting technical support > to get delisted. The target audience is the abuse officers of ISPs, not > end-users. It got posted. Considering the significant similarity between apews and the former spews I > am betting the impact of apews will become as big as the impact of spews. Whatever, I complained to the Federal Trade Commission. Let them talk to the Feds about it. > Personally, I want to stop spam, too, but these kinds of Soviet-style > > tactics are way out of bounds. I would go so far as to say they > represent an > > illegal restraint on trade. > > If I consult the Amazon book ratings database and choose not to buy a book > based on the result, is that an 'illegal restraint on trade'? > If I consult the apews database and choose not to accept email from a > server based on the result, is that an 'illegal restraint on trade'? No, no, no. What is happening is more like a situation where no one from the state of Georgia can send mail to anyone subscribed to a watch list, because someone sent a mail bomb from a post office in the state of Georgia and the people who run the watch list decided to blacklist the entire state. Definitely a restraint on trade. > > Has anyone else seen this problem? > > I have seen it a lot with certain ISPs. It was always resolved by > switching to a reputable ISP. So two of the biggest ISPs in the country are disreputable? Do you understand the nature of the problem? People zombie the computers of the unaware on these big ISPs and use their systems to send out spam. You believe that Soviet-style collective punishment is the appropriate remedy for that problem? A few lines above this you wrote you wanted to stop spam, and here you are > asking us to propagate a chain email. You seem to have a rather flexible > definition of spam. Look up the definition of chain letter. I would hope so, maybe the ISPs that get blacklisted will get a bit more > careful about signing "pink contracts" and get a bit more proactive about > responding to complaints. > > So you are OK with some anonymous shadow group dictating who you can do business with? I am not. -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJV Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:236442 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
