North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
Bob Allisat wrote: > Technicians have no right to scan any mail for > contents that does not violate the more important > civil rights of citizens to privacy and precious > freedoms of expression. What Mr. Howard is, in fact, > proposing is the computer systems equivalent of that > staff of thousands in the form of software that scans > and then junks anything the programmers decide is > unacceptable. Which is totally egregious. The programmers would not get to make those decisions. They would instead be made, in effect, by my customers through their choice of service provider. > Instead of designing systems and software that can > handle the modern volume of electronic communications > (the good the bad and the ugly) these allegedly capable The volume of mail isn't the issue. It's the annoyance factor that my customers face. I already get complaints from customers just because I have not actually implemented/deployed any of the blocking facilities I speak of. I want to, and I suspect I will have to. > professionals advocate choking off what "We the People" > can or cannot send each other and call it a public > service. When in fact the public would be served far > more by recieiving all of the mail from systems that > didin't choke at every silly cyber-flyer, dumb make > money scheme or wedding/birth announcement. I have no plans to block by content. My current plans are to block known open relays and dialup ports. I won't need to look inside the mail (by program) at all to make the blocking decision. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* phil at intur.net * -- |