bill@??? (T. William Wells) writes:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970520095358.709G-100000@???>,
> <david@???> wrote:
> : I personally detest spam, and most of my users do as well. However, being
> : an ISP means connecting people to the 'net, and providing reliable mail
> : (and other) services. Deciding to ban certain hosts/domains because of
> : their unsolicited nature could be construed as csensorship.
>
> /* SOAPBOX
[Errant lunar composition hypothesis excised]
>
> Be that as it may, when my users complain about this, I explain
> that I am not censoring mail, I am refusing to allow those who
> won't play by the cooperative rules of the Internet the use of my
> part of the Internet. This is why I use router blocks for abusive
> or incompetently administered networks -- if they won't or can't
> play by the rules, they have no right to use *any* part of my
> network. Or yours.
>
> END SOAPBOX */
Perhaps it would be as well to accept that different people and organisations
that are in the position of being "Internet Service Providers" may find that
they are under differing moral and legal obligations. This isn't really an
issue for the Exim list unless the Exim program were to make it impossible
or difficult to implement any particular policy.
As it happens, we have had one of our first complaints this week along the
lines of "you may call it spam, but it's part of my field of research, why
are you blocking it?". Although Philip's tactful responses seem now to have
converted this particular user into an enthusiastic supporter of spam
blocking, this is going to be an increasing problem. With the amount of
spam increasing exponentially (quite literally), there are going to be
marginal cases misjudged and outright mistakes made as the people making
spam blocking decisions come under increasing time pressure.
Chris Thompson Cambridge University Computing Service,
Email: cet1@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.
