[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- To: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Subject: RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- From: Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- In-Reply-To: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D67BE@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 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.
People have been added in after a single complaint, web hosters have been
added in for NOT being discrimanatory for what software their clients
may sell through the website.
> 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
> completely acceptable.
Remember, MAPS is a secret; the blacklist is secret, the deliberations
they use when adding to the blacklist are secret. I don't call this due