North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Spam Control Considered Harmful
On Tuesday, October 28, 1997 11:27 AM, Alex Bligh [SMTP:[email protected]] wrote: > > The Moral Majority and The Promise Keepers and other fundamentalist groups > > sit on white horses waiting to ride in and save us from ourselves. What is > > being said below needs to be considered. Firstly, Paul mentioned the need > > to have strong checks and balances. What does that mean and how do we keep > > him honest and ensure "we are using our powers for good"? I personally do spam filtering for our site. Actually, it's not "spam" filtering per se. If you don't have a domain in the from addr which resolves, your mail is rejected. If you are not a customer of ours and try to relay mail off our servers, your mail is rejected. This to me seems completely just. Why should you send mail with a false return to address and why if you are not my customer should you send mail? Now, filtering based on hostname & blackholing is a bit extreme. It limits the user's right to choose. As long as the commercial soliciter has a valid reply-to address which you can use to bitch and complain, then I feel it's fine. However, I believe repeated unsolicited commercial email is harassment. For the same reason you can't call a person on the phone in the US 4 or 5 times unsolicited (it's against the law last I checked). It's wasting my time. On the Internet, it's wasting my bandwidth and resources. Does anyone have any stats on what percentage of networks is spam? I figure probably around 5%. Jordan -- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy/ Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com
|