how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to Die Spammers
Re: I don't care what kind of spam it is... Well, I'm not a spammer and I've spent a fair amount of time reading the Constitution. I'm a lawyer, so it kinda goes with the territory. Believe me, I understand the concept of "state action" versus private action and private property rights.
Let's look at it from another angle. The use of email is becoming more and more ubiquitous. However, several ISPs decide to use a spam "blacklist" that contains the IP addresses of a political candidate or political organization (aka "spammers"), effectively blocking their email from receipt by the ISP's subscribers. Do you think the e-mailing politician has a claim? How about the subscriber who didn't receive the politician's e-mailings? Or, what about the political candidate or organization whose e-mailings the ISPs did let through? Do they now have some sort of advantage over the "blocked" candidate?
I for one think spam is bad, and I don't care much for the volume I receive. But, I do not believe any ISP or sysadmin has the right to filter any email that is sent to me, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that it is being sent by a spammer. I pay my ISP to provide email services to me, and I alone should be able to decide what I bounce, delete, receive or complain about. To allow otherwise opens a communications conduit of ever-increasing importance to the possibility of abuse, both commercial and political.
Clark | | |
|
| said by clark252:
However, several ISPs decide to use a spam "blacklist" that contains the IP addresses of a political candidate or political organization (aka "spammers"), effectively blocking their email from receipt by the ISP's subscribers. Do you think the e-mailing politician has a claim?
No- not at all, and here's why. If they did it like the rest of the responsible businesses do, they'd have a card at their fundraisers, or a form on their webpage that the recipient would fill out which says "I REQUEST to receive e-mail from you"
said by clark252:
How about the subscriber who didn't receive the politician's e-mailings? Or, what about the political candidate or organization whose e-mailings the ISPs did let through? Do they now have some sort of advantage over the "blocked" candidate? I for one think spam is bad, and I don't care much for the volume I receive. But, I do not believe any ISP or sysadmin has the right to filter any email that is sent to me, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that it is being sent by a spammer. I pay my ISP to provide email services to me, and I alone should be able to decide what I bounce, delete, receive or complain about.
That's why most of your ISP's now have an On\Off filtering feature. Anything that they think is junk goes in a folder on each user's mailbox. If you find that something goes there that shouldn't, you tell it to accept it, and it does.
As my company's e-mail Postmaster, it is my job to make sure that e-mail etiquette is followed. Even when a manager says, "We can send to whoever we want", and I have to explain why that's not the case.
And I'm proud to say that we've never had a complaint by being respectful of people's time and e-mail boxes. | |
|
