Re: Every spam is sacred
Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> a tapoté :
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Xavier Roche wrote:
>
> > Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > This is a philosophical issue, and I understand there are those who
> > > think that DNS blocking lists are wonderful. But I at least am glad
> > > that the Debian admins have chose to use an approach such as
> > > spamassassin, rather than DNS blacklists.
> >
> > Limited DNS blocking IS wonderful. There ARE networks only specialized
> > in spamming, and clearly identifies as rogue (see SPEWS for example)
> > We will never block any innocent people with these lists.
>
> 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 called terrorism. You fight innocent people to make them
support another ISP, by fear.
Like a Ben Laden would kill 3000 innocent people to make the USA
government change his policy in Africa.
(indeed, I'm not saying that killing someone is equal to squish his
mails)
We're definitely in the era of "collateral damage" (term invented
during the Gulf War in 1999 about Iraqi citizens, if I'm correct) but
I'm not sure we should be glad of it.
--
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: