RE: Re[2]: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott A Crosby [mailto:crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:53 PM
> To: Richard Hartman
> Cc: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
> 
> Its not.
> 
> 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
> process.
> 

Then perhaps it is the process that must be corrected, rather
than disposing of the concept entirely.

There is a saying: don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!