>On spammers not having rights: That's a fairly militant view, but there's >nothing wrong with that specifically... the trouble comes in when there is >confusion about the definition of a spammer. A good example might be the >spam candidate we received the other day that was a Staples news letter. >Unlike a get-rich-quick-with-your-own-porn-site-sign-here advertisement, >this one could easily be legitimate... so the line does get pretty gray.
Unsolicited CE is Unsolicited CE, period. So legit Staples bought $49.99 CDROM with harvested email addresses. Staples is illegimately violating my TOS and AUP. >This is why it is critical to allow the system administrator and potentially >the user adjust any filtering mechanisms according to their own policies. >There is no debate on whether an individual has the right to refuse content >for themselves or accept a policy which refuses content on their behalf... >the debate is on refusing content without the consent or knowledge of the >recipient because that crosses the line into censorship. ... eloquently, admirably stated, but is way too complex, hair-splitting, and politically correct. :))) As owner and seller of the services, you state your TOS and AUP to your prospects, who are free to contract for your services, on your terms, or not. If they want to receive effusions of sewage from 1000's of open-relays, dial-up lines, abusive servers world-wide, they can take their custom elsewhere. Len http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND 8.2.4 for NT4 & W2K http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-abuse mail gateways Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
