Re: My email is rejected by some sites
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > A mailserver can harm _others_.
>
> I totally agree. Which is why I'm all for only allowing arbitrary
> entities to determine who can and can not run a mail server. What we
> need is more control, more censorship, more penalties, and less
> interference from subvertive terrorists who try to route their mail
> around the system. The only reason they have to be doing something like
> this would be if they had something to hide. I believe that their
> computers should be confiscated and their citizenship revoked.
Let's turn this around: why should *I* be forced to accept mail coming
from a dynamic IP, when statistically such mail appears much more likely
to be spam or viruses? Who are you to tell me that I have to accept such
mail?
(If it's not obvious why direct mail from dynamic IP addresses is a
favourite tool of spammers, it should be.)
This is *not* censorship, by the way. Censorship is when the government
represses your speech. Assuming you're American (I'm not), you have a
right to free speech, but that does not imply having a right to force
other people to publish or listen to your speech. People need to stop
misusing the term.
> Oh yes, and blacks to the back of the bus, please; just be happy we let
> you on at all.
It's a weak argument that requires a comparison to racism to be heard,
not to mention that it demeans the plight of those affected by racism.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: