[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: failure notice (about relays.osirusoft.com)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Coker" <russell@coker.com.au>
To: "Jason Lim" <maillist@jasonlim.com>
Cc: <debian-isp@lists.debian.org>; <debian-user@list.debian.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: failure notice (about relays.osirusoft.com)

> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:02, Jason Lim wrote:
> > As I said in a previous email:
> >
> > -------------------------
> > It was once said that it is better to let off 10 criminals than to put
> > innocent man in jail.
> >
> > You, on the other hand, suggest it is better to put 10 innocent men in
> > jail for 1 criminal.
> >
> > Interesting thought.
> > -------------------------
> That only applies for criminal law where guilt has to be proven "beyond
> reasonable doubt".
> In civil law it's the "balance of probabilities", so if it's "most
> that you did it then you'll be punished.
> If you sue a group of 10 people who are associated and you can prove
that you
> have a valid case against at least 9 of them (and not one of them can
> themselves to be less guilty than the rest), then it's most likely that
> you'll get a judgement against all 10 of them.
> Having your email blocked by an anti-spam service does not compare to
> locked in a cell with a group of sex-starved bikers...  It doesn't even
> compare with the penalties you may face under civil law if you get sued.

That would be debatable... how about loss of business due to
hindering/halting/imparing/interferring/your-own-word here business

You are only looking at a personal level... okay... if you can't get email
from your best friend that lives in Asia, the loss is only to you, and to
the other people that can't get their communications to/from Asia

How about if a large multinational firm suddenly loses communications with
a large portion of it's customers living in Asia, because a militant RBL
suddenly decides to block it's upstream or the country (not them sending
spam)? True... the blocks can be worked around (relaying the mail through
other mail servers not in Asia, etc.), but it still takes time, during
which the loss of business could be pretty big.

I'm just trying to put the "other" side of the argument in.

I get spam.. i certainly get my fair share of it every day. But justifying
everything by saying "it's collateral damage, deal with it" just isn't an
acceptable solution. By using a non-militant or not-so-militant list,
okay... you may get a bit more spam... but the question is...

do you think it is more acceptable to lose an email, rather than get a
spam message a day?

Personally, I would probably accept 2 or 3 spams more by using a
non-militant and less "aggressive" list, to make sure I have nearly
99-100% of my legit email. Then again... some people will be willing to
lose legit email to block nearly all spam. It's a trade-off... and both
personally and business-wise, I don't think I'm willing to sacrifice
legitimate email for the sake of deleting some spams in return by using
less aggressive lists.

Reply to: