Re: Every spam is sacred
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:04, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> a tapoté :
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:21, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > This is called terrorism. You fight innocent people to make them
> > > support another ISP, by fear.
> >
> > I think it's more like economic sanctions. No-one changes ISP out of
> > fear, they do so out of a practical desire to get their mail delivered.
> > Just as governments sometimes change their policy out of a practical
> > desire to get their products exported when they face sanctions.
>
> Economic sanctions can be terrorism.
No they can't. The definitions given by "dict terrorism" refer to violence
and terror.
Refusing to do business with someone is not a violent act.
When someone refuses to do business with you it does not cause terror, maybe
some anxiety about your future financial prospects, but not terror.
> You deliberately harm innocent people using these ISP just because
> they use this ISP. Like Ben Laden killed innocent american people
> just because they were American.
There is a huge difference between refusing to receive mail and killing
people. Any person who's mail is blocked can use hotmail (which is never
blocked). Being forced to use hotmail is nasty, but it's much preferable to
being killed.
Anyone who thinks that there's any similarity between people who block spam
and Bin Laden has led a far too sheltered life. They should watch the news
and see what's really going on out there.
> > As the bases in question will apparently be moved to Iraq it seems
> > that he is getting what he wants.
>
> Ben Laden clear intentions remains to be determined. What is your
> source of information?
As far as I am aware he has always stated that he wants the US bases removed.
While his stated intentions may not quite match his real intentions, the best
source of information we have are his own statements.
> But what is new is, in fact, what collateral damage means now. And
> it's not "damage caused by a militar operation, such as a bombing, to
> objects or persons not themselves the intended target of the attack."
> but "damage caused by a militar operation, such as bombing, to objects
> or persons themselves the intended target of the attack, to make their
> government, not itself the intended target of the attack, give up."
Yes, you mean the way it was used in WW2 and in many of the plans for nuclear
war.
> And in your case, we exactly in the new definition, not in the old
> one. You'll deliberately target people you know innocent to make their
> ISP change it's policy.
No. I will use whichever spam blocking list results in the most spam being
removed from my in-box with the least number of false positives. I don't
mind what the policy of an anti-spam service is as long as it delivers decent
results.
Also I have to do for my clients what they wish. Some of them keep demanding
better spam protection so I have to keep doing what they wish.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: