Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:19:38 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, "Roelof Osinga" <roelof@nisser.com> Cc: <hamellr@1nova.com>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: email question Message-ID: <005701c0baf9$d753f2c0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <15047.37364.766670.386170@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yeah - I noticed that after going to The World's website that nowhere on it in their policies and procedures do they say that they are spamfiltering, or that they prohibit spamfiltering. This is quite in violation of CAUSE's recommendations as well as everyone else who is spamfighting. You should publish a clear policy that you are spamfiltering and that you prohibit spamming, but you most definitely should not publish the methods that you are using to spamfilter. In this case I have to side with the claimant - The World's failure to take a public stand against spamming, yet secretly filter like rats in a wall, does nothing to help decrease spamming on the Internet and does nothing to educate users about what's acceptable use of Internet mail. Unfortunately these sorts of decisions are used in subsequent court cases on the same issue, and so it's clear that the court had no other option than to rule the way they did. But, this is definitely a case where the ISP certainly didn't deserve a favorable ruling. However, I also don't feel the claimant deserved a favorable ruling either, because if they are too lazy to shift service to another ISP then they deserve what they get. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Mike Meyer >Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 1:39 PM >To: Roelof Osinga >Cc: Mike Meyer; hamellr@1nova.com; questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: email question > > >Roelof Osinga <roelof@nisser.com> types: >> > FWIW, The World was recently sued for damages because their spam >> > scanners dropped some non-spam mail. The court upheld their right to >> > do this. >> Yeah, well, personally I feel that the best solution is to define a >> clear policy, publish it good - i.e. circumvent the 'but how could I >> know?' - have legal eyes check it over and implement it. > >It's hard to have a clear policy for rules that are changing on a >regular basis. Stating that you do filter in the TOS - which all users >have agreed to follow and so presumably read, right? - should do. > >Actually, the claimant tried this in that case. The World asked if >anyone knew the security rules used by their phone company, and that >pretty much killed that argument. > > <mike >-- >Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?005701c0baf9$d753f2c0$1401a8c0>