[NCLUG] mmmmmmm...spam control

shaggydan dmiles at holly.ColoState.EDU
Tue Feb 19 14:01:40 MST 2002


Of course the thing to consider with this is what the govt has already
said abotu spam.

That is that spam is, on the basic level, ok but when it gets above a
certain point (refusing to stop sending it when asked) it becomes
harrassment and that has been unlawful for a long, long time.

I reply to *every* spam I get asking them to take me off the list and i've
even sued one company when they didn't (I got $10, the cost of my lawer
and I landed them with a $60000 fine). I basically don't have a spam
problem (I get one spam in maybe three months) and while it would be nice
not to have to go to that trouble I'm certainly willing to do it in order
to keep my rights.

_____________________________________
Most men do not sing, most men cannot sing, most men will not stay where
others are singing if it be continued more than two hours. Note that.
						--Mark Twain

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, bmc wrote:

> Of course to do what you would like to do (and I am assuming allot) and take
> away Spam , even though we all hate it, would in fact "give up an essential
> liberty" , Free speech. right?
> 
> Once a governing body decides that Spam is in fact not ok what's to stop
> them from deciding that other things are not ok. It's much like those
> "temporary" tax hikes you see. They never really seem to go away. The simply
> find another way to keep it or just increase it permanently.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Loseke" <mike at verinet.com>
> To: <nclug at nclug.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [NCLUG] mmmmmmm...spam control
> 
> 
> > Thus spake Evelyn Mitchell:
> > >
> > > * On 2002-02-19 18:46 bmc <brettcrandall at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One tool for Linux, known as Tagged Message Delivery Agent (TMDA),
> takes
> > > > the opposite tactic and uses a "whitelist" approach. Instead of
> allowing
> > >
> > > I've resisted moving to a whitelist approach because I get a lot of
> > > new contact emails for business. I haven't noticed any other businesses
> > > I contact using this approach, and I suspect that it would be offputting
> > > to new clients.
> > >
> > > What do you all think? Would you consider it rude or inconvenient to
> > > have to reply to a whitelist message? Several major linux names use
> > > them now, and I don't mind if its going to a "I get way too much mail
> > > because I'm well known" person.
> >
> >  My main problem with this is that it says that spam is ok and that I'll
> > just go through the extra effort to only accept email from people I like
> > or know will send me email. It doesn't do anything to stop spammers from
> > spamming and does everything to torque off the people you forgot to add.
> > I haven't subscribed to the Qwest telemarketer blocking service for this
> > same reason (I just don't answer "out of area" calls).
> >
> >  A relevant quote (gee, a quote from me?) from good ol' Ben Franklin, and
> > who can argue with Ben, is:
> >
> >           They that can give up essential liberty to
> >           obtain a little temporary saftey deserve
> >           neither liberty not saftey.
> >                           -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> >
> > --
> >    Mike Loseke    | One is never deceived, one deceives oneself.
> >  mike at verinet.com |     -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCLUG mailing list
> > NCLUG at nclug.org
> > http://www.nclug.org/mailman/listinfo/nclug
> >
> _______________________________________________
> NCLUG mailing list
> NCLUG at nclug.org
> http://www.nclug.org/mailman/listinfo/nclug
> 




More information about the NCLUG mailing list