Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?

Sun Oct 28 02:56:25 UTC 2001

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.
>