On 11/16/04, Fred Heutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I doubt that the participants in this discussion who are getting
> so huffy about the EFF position are ready to tolerate a
> situation where unknown third parties can arbitrarily block
> any email they send or receive, without informing them,
I doubt that the participants in this discussion who are getting
so huffy about the EFF position are ready to tolerate a
situation where unknown third parties can arbitrarily block
any email they send or receive, without informing them,
regardless of content.
Think about how that maps to the pres
Paul G wrote:
with that said, this is quite possibly off-topic to nanog. i'd second the
request earlier in the thread to move it to somewhere more appropriate.
politechbot for instance .. lovely place to discuss this sort of thing.
http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2004/Nov/0026.html
--
suresh ram
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Kulawiec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: EFF whitepaper
--- snip ---
> > Collateral damage is unacceptable, period.
>
> Oh, I most certainly agree
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 02:47:14PM -0800, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
> To me, and people who rely on email for reliable communication, yes absolutely
Email (that is: SMTP or ESMTP) was never been designed for reliable
communication. It's best-effort. No more.
(*Should* there be a new Internet ma
At a meeting a few weeks ago, a bunch of us made the claim that the NANOG
list could in most cases be self-policing. In that spirit, it seems worth
pointing out that this discussion of the Russian Mafia, Chechen freedom
fighters, the EFF, and China, seems to be heading in a direction that
would b
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:07:20 -0500 Peering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From personal experience, whether you check that you want further
> mailings from MoveOn.org or not, they send them to you anytime you send
> anything (petitions, letters, etc) from their website. They're also not
> that g
on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 02:47:14PM -0800, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steven Champeon wrote:
> > And this affects those of us with not-so-old, not-so-slow machines how?
>
> By the fact that there is no way in hell that he could relay a large
> amount of spam...
You seem to be
On Nov 15, 2004, at 5:47 PM, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
In a nutshell, email requires accountability. The EFF apparently
thinks
that is too high a price to ask for email.
I think you're missing the point. Anonymous communication saves lives,
allows people to "blow the whistle", and in general it ser
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steven Champeon wrote:
> And this affects those of us with not-so-old, not-so-slow machines how?
By the fact that there is no way in hell that he could relay a large
amount of spam...
> The bottom line is that Gilmore, and the EFF, have taken a very soft
> stance on spam, be
on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 01:06:09PM -0800, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steven Champeon wrote:
> > John Gilmore runs a well-known open relay at toad.com, and for some
> > reason thinks that free, anonymous speech is important enough to let
> > spammers drown it out through sheer
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steven Champeon wrote:
> John Gilmore runs a well-known open relay at toad.com, and for some
> reason thinks that free, anonymous speech is important enough to let
> spammers drown it out through sheer volume.
Someone famous said something about paying a high price for free s
On 11/15/04, Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, I've long since stopped listening (or contributing) to the EFF
> as I see their war on antispammers as counterproductive. John Gilmore runs
> a well-known open relay at toad.com, and for some reason thinks that free,
> anonymou
Well-written or not, this piece has a vague odor of blaming the victim
for the crime. To cite the specific example quoted below, if
cash-hungry spam havens like China, Korea and others took action locally
to reduce the "spam-friendly" nature of many of their online providers,
the filtering fic
on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:45:24AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
>
> > http://www.eff.org/wp/?f=SpamCollateralDamage.html
>
> excerpt:
>
> I. The Problem
>
> MoveOn.org is a politically progressive organization that engages
>
ginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Vixie
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: EFF whitepaper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
> http://www.eff.org/wp/?f=SpamCollateralDamage.html
excerpt:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
> http://www.eff.org/wp/?f=SpamCollateralDamage.html
excerpt:
I. The Problem
MoveOn.org is a politically progressive organization that engages
in online activism. For the most part, its work consists of sending
out act
http://www.eff.org/wp/?f=SpamCollateralDamage.html
18 matches
Mail list logo
