Re: Every spam is sacred
Christian Surchi <csurchi@debian.org> a tapoté :
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:07:51PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > I never said that the consequences of these actions are the same but the
> > method followed is similar (targetting innocent to make someone else
> > change it's policy).
>
> Completeley different situations...
And? Same spirit, different situations, I agree.
> is there a rule for us about spam? should we accept mail from all
> over the world, even if it's surely spam? And BTW we were talking
> about *tagging* mail from IPs in RBLs.
You are wrong.
Please re-read Santiago Villa mail.
"Hmm, SPEWS is well known for blocking innocent people. Their
idea is that causing some collateral damage to innocent users
when their ISP host spammers will cause those people to choose
another ISP which does not host spammers. Only when the bad
ISPs see this way they lose a lot of money they will stop
hosting spammers. This is certainly an interesting idea to
fight spammers [...] "
This is clearly not about tagging, which is not "causing some
collateral damage to innocent user" by "blocking innocent people".
As my message was a direct reply to this one, this is what "we were
talking about".
Now, you raise the possibility to only tag these mails, and it seems
acceptable to me.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: