Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
phil at whistler.intur.net
Thu Feb 4 01:16:09 UTC 1999
Bob Allisat wrote:
> Technicians have no right to scan any mail for
> contents that does not violate the more important
> civil rights of citizens to privacy and precious
> freedoms of expression. What Mr. Howard is, in fact,
> proposing is the computer systems equivalent of that
> staff of thousands in the form of software that scans
> and then junks anything the programmers decide is
> unacceptable. Which is totally egregious.
The programmers would not get to make those decisions. They would
instead be made, in effect, by my customers through their choice
of service provider.
> Instead of designing systems and software that can
> handle the modern volume of electronic communications
> (the good the bad and the ugly) these allegedly capable
The volume of mail isn't the issue. It's the annoyance factor
that my customers face. I already get complaints from customers
just because I have not actually implemented/deployed any of
the blocking facilities I speak of. I want to, and I suspect
I will have to.
> professionals advocate choking off what "We the People"
> can or cannot send each other and call it a public
> service. When in fact the public would be served far
> more by recieiving all of the mail from systems that
> didin't choke at every silly cyber-flyer, dumb make
> money scheme or wedding/birth announcement.
I have no plans to block by content. My current plans are to block
known open relays and dialup ports. I won't need to look inside the
mail (by program) at all to make the blocking decision.
-- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * --
-- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | --
-- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | --
-- *-----------------------------* phil at intur.net * --
More information about the NANOG