>>So "right thing to do" is here defined as "what Patrice M. Coles >>wants"? > > No. Neither is it defined as "what Seth Breidbart wants" nor as > "people who create blocklists don't care about what you like". My > definition would involve working toward accomplishing a goal rather > than just doing things with complete disregard for the damage they > cause to innocent victims who had *nothing to do* with spamming.
It is arguable that someone who *pays money to* a *spam-friendly ISP* is a completely "innocent victim" who has "nothing to do" with spamming. >>The ISP is allowed to make a contract prohibiting spam. How is the >>law not being in effect? > > Saying that you can't spam someone and proving that you are and > getting them legally off your network involve very different levels > of work. Many ISPs have no trouble doing that. The ones who aren't kicking off spammers ought to be encouraged to do so. > Some ISPs (including Bellsouth) say they prohibit spam. The > problem is that they recognize that everything isn't just "Yes, > you're spamming from my subnet so I'm just going to refuse to > service anyone on the whole subnet and anyone who wasn't really > spamming will just be victimized any way regardless of whether they > had anything to do with it or not." I would argue that someone who is paying a spam-friendly ISP isn't someone who can claim they "have nothing to do with it". > They have a greater responsiblilty to their customers than to the > blocklisters who are willing to victimize people who had nothing to > do with the situation just because it's too cumbersome to be a > little more conscientious about it. Maybe they should show some responsibility to their non-spamming customers, and cut off their spammers. But while they choose not to do so, somebody else chooses not to accept any email from them as a result. >>I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting >>that a particular business model be legislated? > > No, I'm suggesting that we start by making spam illegal and put > punishments in place for those who spam as well as those who > knowingly allow continued spamming. I didn't see anybody arguing against that. However, it has nothing to do with blocklists (or other actions taken in the years prior to such legislation passing). >>In any case, what happens when other countries have other laws? > > We address it the same way we do everything else. Try to make them > aware of the problems and get them to address them as well. In other words, the problem with _never_ be fully solved by legislation. >>There would still have to be enforcement. > > Yes, that's the same with any law. That's the way our government is > set up. Some laws are self-enforcing (that is, the victim gets statutory damages). That's how fax spam was pretty much stopped. >>Most ISPs already prohibit spamming. > > But this clearly hasn't resolved the problem, so obviously something > else is needed. Blocking the rest of the ISPs will help, but you don't seem to like that idea. >>It doesn't appear to be cost-prohibitive for ISPs ranging from very >>small (e.g. Panix) to very large (e.g. AOL) to prohibit spamming. > > Except that since we still have a spam problem, it doesn't appear to > be cost-prohibitive for ISPs to *ineffecitvely* prohibit spamming. Panix effectively prohibits spamming. AOL effectively prohibits spamming. Therefore, it's possible. Some ISPs _choose_ not to effectively prohibit spamming. Other ISPs _choose_ not to accept email from those ISPs. Seth _______________________________________________ spamcon-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
