Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?
i'd written:
well, be careful with your acl's, because if you accidently disrupt nonabusive traffic as a side effect of protecting your network from abuse, you'll shortly be hearing complaints from EFF about how you've disenfranchised said nonabusers.
someone answered:
You've got to be kidding me.
no i am not. in http://www.eff.org/effector/HTML/effect14.31.html#II we see: | The focus of efforts to stop spam should include protecting end users and | should not only consider stopping spammers at all costs. Specifically, any | measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach | their intended recipients. Proposed solutions that do not fulfill these | minimal goals are themselves a form of Internet abuse and are a direct | assault on the health, growth, openness and liberty of the Internet. | Email is protected speech. There is a fundamental free speech right to be | able to send and receive messages, regardless of medium. Unless that right | is being abused by a particular individual, that individual must not be | restricted. It is unacceptable, then, for anti-spam policies to limit | legitimate rights to send or receive email. To the extent that an anti-spam | proposal, whether legal or technical, results in such casualties, that | proposal is unacceptable. i never thought i'd feel a need to lecture shari or john on the nature of the protection in "protected speech", so, i have not even tried.
Don't pretty much all methods of spam reduction block some legit mail? So the question is, do you want spam redcuction with some potential risk, or do you want all email intended for you. I bet those who pay for additional bandwidth usage don't share in the opinion of the article below. Brian "Sonic" Whalen Success = Preparation + Opportunity On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
i'd written:
well, be careful with your acl's, because if you accidently disrupt nonabusive traffic as a side effect of protecting your network from abuse, you'll shortly be hearing complaints from EFF about how you've disenfranchised said nonabusers.
someone answered:
You've got to be kidding me.
no i am not. in http://www.eff.org/effector/HTML/effect14.31.html#II we see:
| The focus of efforts to stop spam should include protecting end users and | should not only consider stopping spammers at all costs. Specifically, any | measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach | their intended recipients. Proposed solutions that do not fulfill these | minimal goals are themselves a form of Internet abuse and are a direct | assault on the health, growth, openness and liberty of the Internet.
| Email is protected speech. There is a fundamental free speech right to be | able to send and receive messages, regardless of medium. Unless that right | is being abused by a particular individual, that individual must not be | restricted. It is unacceptable, then, for anti-spam policies to limit | legitimate rights to send or receive email. To the extent that an anti-spam | proposal, whether legal or technical, results in such casualties, that | proposal is unacceptable.
i never thought i'd feel a need to lecture shari or john on the nature of the protection in "protected speech", so, i have not even tried.
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 07:56:25PM -0700, Brian Whalen wrote:
Don't pretty much all methods of spam reduction block some legit mail? So the question is, do you want spam redcuction with some potential risk, or do you want all email intended for you. I bet those who pay for additional bandwidth usage don't share in the opinion of the article below.
There are several interesting points to consider: +-Spam extreme | +-You get all spam, because it's ok. You also get all your normal mail. | +-You get a small amount of spam, but all your normal mail. This is the | best we can do and let you get all your normal mail. This is the EFF's | position. | +-You get no spam, and all your normal mail. This a utopia that will | likely never be reached. | +-You get no spam, and get most, but not all of your normal e-mail. In | general this is where I would say MAPS and ORBS and other black lists | try to be, that is they want to remove all spam, but do sometimes catch | legitimate e-mail. | +-You get no e-mail, because it might be spam. | +-No spam extreme. Most anything inbetween these points is irreverent, as the methods employed should be able to approach one of these points if implemented correctly. Philosophically I think the EFF is right. Blocking a single legitimate e-mail is very bad, and should be avoided at all costs. Practically I think that the tactics of MAPS and ORBS and other blacklists are necessary right now. I'd like nothing better than to see them go away because better technology has come along. Legally (eg, if congress were going to pass a new law) I'm very much on the side of the EFF, because the law must be pure and true, because anything less impinges on our civil liberties. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
participants (3)
-
Brian Whalen -
Leo Bicknell -
Paul A Vixie