Re: [PLUG] cultural ethics of email and spam

[schwepes@netaxs.com]

I understand that the downingstreetmemo.com people believe that Comcast
has declared that even mentioning their existance is spam.
They claim that Comcast then blames Symantec whose spam blocker Comcast
uses.  They claim to believe that the issue is political and not
your usual penis enhancer tripe.
This was on another list but seems relevent here.  Regrettably I did not
save the messege.
bs


On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matt Mossholder wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 16:00 -0400, John Von Essen wrote:
> > Read your Terms of Service for your broadband internet provider.
> >
> >
> > Residential user's email originating at an MTA behind their home
> > connection is considered spam by most remote systems because that
> > activity is not allowed.
>
> 	...Ummm.. that's rather circular logic. If it were not allowed, you
> wouldn't need to consider it spam, because it would never reach you.
> Also, stating that it isn't allowed is only true with -some- ISPs.
>
>
> >  And I have no sympathy for people who run MTA's behind Comcast,
> > violate ToS, then complain that they "should" be allowed to do this
> > and why is everyone unfairly blocking.
> >
> > If you want to run a server, buy business-class cable or DSL. If you
> > want to be cheap and break the rules to cheat the system, suffer the
> > consequences.
>
> Why should I? Because someone at a company that I have no relationship
> with has decided that it should be so (talking about DUL maps)? Get over
> it. The Internet is peer-to-peer by design, and you can't change that by
> fiat. The fact that 95% of mail is now spam (granted, an arguable
> figure) justifies my stance that the approaches we are using aren't
> working.
>
> It would be much more productive to implement a system that authorizes
> mail servers, and hold the owners responsible for the actions of their
> users. As an example, if every mail sender was required to have a
> certificate, and would only talk to other mail servers with valid
> certificates, everyone would know who to blame if they started to get
> spam. This is also a much more reliable method of establishing trust
> that "is that a dial up line?".
>
> Also, you should take a look at Comcast's terms of service, while you
> are at it. It does NOT say I cannot run a mail server. What it DOES say
> is that I can't run -public- mail servers. Since my mail server is not
> public (it only allows me and my in-house family to send/receive mail),
> then I am within the terms. The terms also state I can't send spam.
>
> I can live by those terms.
>
>
> 		--Matt
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
> Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
> General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug