[91695] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBS Contact
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Allan Poindexter)
Thu Aug 10 01:21:40 2006
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: apoindex@aoc.nrao.edu
From: Allan Poindexter <apoindex@aoc.nrao.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:17:12 -0600
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0608092136290.26477@sokol.elan.net> (william
elan net's message of "Wed, 9 Aug 2006 21:39:22 -0700 (PDT)")
X-Draft-From: ("nnml+mail:nanog" 17673)
X-MailScanner-From: apoindex@aoc.nrao.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
william> In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam
william> filter manufacturer should go to jail...
Manufacturer? No. It is perfectly permissible for a recipient to run
a filter over his own mail if he wishes.
Jail? Not what I said. I said postal workers couldn't get away with
this behavior. The laws governing email are different. BUT:
They aren't as different as is generally believed. Go read the
ECPA sometime.
Being legal isn't the same thing as being moral. The world would
be a better place if people started worrying about doing what is
right rather than only avoiding what will get them in jail.
If I seem testy about this it is because I am. A friend of mine with
cancer died recently. I learned later she sent me email befoe she
died. It did not reach me because some arrogant fool thought he knew
better than me what I wanted to read. And it isn't the first time or
the only sender with which I have had this problem. I have had plenty
of users with the same complaint as well.
I have in the past considered this antispam stuff "ill advised" or
"something I oppose". Expect me to fight it tooth and nail from now
on.
