Actually, I am agreeing with you... it is a complex point to address and communicate. The trouble with the Staples list is that some users on any given system may have subscribed. In fact, they may have subscribed and forgotten... in that case, the contract between the parties was in place.
Consider the scenario... Some users on your system are subscribed to the list. Some other user on your system becomes subscribed and does not wish to be - let's assume through legitimate means for the sake of argument. The unhappy subscriber complains that this is spam, and you add a filter to remove the content. Suddenly all of the other legitimate subscribers are blocked without notice or recourse... the only way they know they are blocked is that they stop getting their news letter. Now the Staples scenario may be too trivial... but suppose the situation is altered a bit. Suppose the legitimate subscribers are receiving an investment newsletter about their portfolio. Suppose the unhappy subscriber gets a pump-and-dump spam and complains, then suppose that your new rule somehow blocks the legitimate investment news letter because they appear identical. Next day, the legitimate newsletter advises it's subscribers to drop Enron just in time for them to save millions... but they never get that newsletter. _M | -----Original Message----- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael E. | Middleton | Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 11:06 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] rules.ima | | | Email is a consentual medium... both parties have to have given consent to | the transaction before it occurs. Email is a person-to-person | medium, not a | broadcast medium. It's not a gray area. There's no contract | between Staples | and I that gives them the right to use my equipment and bandwitch to | advertise their products to my customers (unless my customer | first requested | that contact). Spammers have no rights. I don't care if you think that's | militant or not. My customers have the rights... they are the ones paying | the bill. | | Anyway, between spamassassin on the SMTP preprocessor and rules.ima on the | Imail... I'm blocking more than 99% of the SPAM at the moment. | Point is; I'm | willing to share rules.ima ideas without fear of a lawsuit from spammers. | They don't have any right to abuse my network or customers. | | Mike | | > | > I have two points on this. | > | > On spammers not having rights: That's a fairly militant view, | but there's | > nothing wrong with that specifically... the trouble comes in | when there is | > confusion about the definition of a spammer. A good example might be the | > spam candidate we received the other day that was a Staples news letter. | | | Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html | to be removed from this list. | | An Archive of this list is available at: | http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ | | Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
