[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:06:49 -0700
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeme A Brelin [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:04 PM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > Moreover, spamming is not an excercise of free-speech. It is an
> > attempt at free advertising. Basically, they are getting something
> > for nothing. They are (generally) trying to sell something, and not
> > have to pay to advertise it.
> No one's claiming that RBL blocks spammer's rights to free
> speech... at
> least that's not how I read it.
> RBLs block LEGITIMATE SPEECH in an attempt to block spammers.
> The cure is worse than the disease.
Now there you may have something ... depending, of course, upon
If all it took to get on the list was a single complaint of a
single spammer and the whole ISP got blackholed ... well, that
would not be kosher.
But somebody posted a few msgs ago the process used for one of
the RBL lists, and it seemed to be quite a lengthy process and
gave the ISP ample opportunity to correct the problem themselves
before consigning them to the black hole. If they have an open
mail server, they can secure it. If they have customer(s) abusing
the service, they can deal with them.
As long as due process is strictly observed, the final outcome is
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!