Len, I am agreeing with you also. However, the newsletter may have been solicited legitimately and there may be no clear way of determining that fact. The reason I used the word "militant" was to caution against a policy which does not take into account the possibility of error in detecting and classifying spam. If Staples bought a list and spammed you with it, you are dead right... however if a disgruntled staples customer who subscribed to their list suddenly tells you it is spam then you are not right. The trouble is in knowing the difference, knowing that it is difficult to know the difference, and having a system and policy in place which accomodates that reality.
On the complexities of managing individualised filtering and TOS/AUP: My meaning was: If your TOS/AUP states that you will filter all content _thus_ and the user accepts that TOS/AUP then the rules are satisfied. I know that mine are and we filter nearly 30% of incomming traffic using our adaptive filtering systems. So again, I think we agree here. On complexity... I think that with the correct tools in place it is not too complex, but it is a moving target and as such it will never be perfect. _M | -----Original Message----- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Len Conrad | Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 11:07 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] rules.ima | | | | >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/ | | 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/
