Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:30:14PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:22:28PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > 	I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes.  I also use
> > various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including
> > blocking entire rogue domains.  If that rogue domain happens to be a two
> > letter TLD, so be it.  If it gets bad enough, maybe they'll fix it.

> You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
> majority. This is not acceptable.

	No...  I'm say that their right to free speech does not trump
my right to not have to listen to it or download it and I determine
the criterion, they don't.  I have, in my right to free speech, the
right to say screw off, I don't want to hear it.

> When you subscript your mailbox to list of 'spammers' to avoid associating
> with them, with the knowledge that you may lose some valuable mail, that is
> fine.

	Excuse me???  Clue alert!  I'm not subscribing anything to any
spam mailbox.  I'm not doing jack shit to subscribe myself to anything
to do with them.  I am leaving bait around for them to screw themselves,
but I certainly have the free speech right to do that, now don't I?
I don't go to them and say "subscribe all these addresses".  I don't
say to them, send E-Mail here.  They are trespassing on my systems,
clearly stepping over well delineated boundries.

	I'm really lost by your reasoning on this one.  "Subscribing my
mailbox to a list of 'spammers' to avoid associating with them, with the
knowledge that you loose some valuable mail" makes absolutely no sense
what so ever.  The legitimate mail I may or may not loose has no bearing
on the sugarplum or teergrube systems (which is what I'm assuming that
you are elluding to).

> The situation is similar to not visiting a gay bar if you don't like
> homosexual people. However, that is not what you are doing blocking whole
> countries. That is like building concrete barriers around cites to punish
> them for not oppressing their own minority citizen ("I'm going to block your
> whole country until you outlaw this class of speech I find offensive").

	Tough...  I find the speech offensive, I don't have to listen
to it.  If I find that the level of offensive speech from a particular
source exceeds all value, then I have the right to block it.  They don't
like it, they have a right to change.  Like I said...  I don't take
active action against them.  They have to come to me.  They come to
my web site and step over my limits and contact my systems.  I'm not
going to them.

> Spam is not good, but destroying freedom is worse. I suggest that every
> person who is eager to use oppressive technological measures to stop spammers
> please consider the potential wider consequences.

	Destroying my freedom is just as bad.  I have the freedom to
choose and I have the freedom not to be plagued by the vermin who have
harvested my addresses and are using them in a way that violates my
acceptable use on my addresses.

> Today the majority thinks spam is wrong, today you are a part of the
> majority. The Internet should always avoid the tyranny of the masses, even
> when it's operators are a part of the 'mass' today. Tomorrow the issue will
> not be spam, and you might not be in the majority.

	Not a problem.  Won't be the first time and won't be the last time.
I deal and so shall they.

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  [phone]   |  [e-mail]
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  [phone]   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!