[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- To: Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- From: Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <200110250431.f9P4V2404177@lumbercartel.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, D. C. Sessions wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 October 2001 14:15, Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net> wrote:
> > But that ISP should be required to offer unfiltered mail as well and that
> > should be the default configuration, lest the ignorant get screwed.
>
> *Required?*
Yes, required.
> As it happens, I have done exactly the opposite: chosen a mail handler
> who blocks very aggressively, because once the traffic hits my inbox
> some of the most effective methods don't work any more.
What methods are those?
> I worked hard to find my ISP, and you're telling me that I shouldn't
> be allowed to have that choice?
Not at all. You'll note that I wrote (quoted above) "should be required
to offer unfiltered mail as well", meaning "as well as filtered mail".
I think filtering should be opt-in for each and every ISP.
It's just a matter of removing a gateway to abuse consolidated power.
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme@brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org