At 08:56 AM 17-11-97 -0600, Joe Shaw wrote:

If you decide to start filtering out SPAM by blocking it from the source, do you end up becoming a content provider because you're controlling what your customers have access to?

This is why the spam issue has to be attacked as a theft of service issue. Spam is identified not by its content, per se, but by such things as: 1) unauthorized relaying 2) false Reply, From and To addresses 3) false Received headers 4) invalid domains and IP addresses 5) fradulent headers of other types 6) lack of unsubscribe capability 7) lack of explicit subscribe capability If you decide to block spam because it violates a standard for email headers and subscription policy, then you are not controlling content, only the proper addressing and routing of messages. If someone sets up a subscription mail list, solicits subscribers, and then sends out "make money fast" messages, that is not spam. This is where Jack Rickard is wrong in his defense of Phil Lawlor. Jack thinks that Phil is on the high moral ground when he says he cannot filter based on content, but that is wrong-headed. Spam is a theft of service issue related to the rules for the transfer of email and according to these rules, Lawlor and AGIS deserve to be crucified. Of course, AGIS should not filter based on content, but they should enforce rules for the proper addressing and delivery of email and the proper management of subscriber-initiated subscription to mailing lists. They should enforce this on their customers instead of trying to get them to follow some high minded collective nonsense-speak, all the while taking their dirty money. --Kent