On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:09:20 +0100 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed 21 Aug 2019 at 20:33:12 +0100, Joe wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:07:36 +0100 > > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ease up? Perhaps. > > > > > > The "in general" is interesting and informative. Suppose the USPS, > > > Royal Mail or Deutsche Post etc decided the point of origin or the > > > destination for a mail was a criterion in their delivery policy? > > > What a world we would live in then! But the email world gaily > > > goes about deciding who sends or gets email in the name of spam > > > fighting. > > > > > > The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic > > > addresses. Want to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? > > > Easy; don't have a static address. Want to be homeless and send > > > or receive a letter - Royal Mail will not stop you. Email is a > > > solution which has been turned into a toy communication system. > > > > > > > Are you saying that we all have a duty to accept spam and viruses > > from every bot and spammer on the planet? > > "a duty"? Don't be silly. Address the point. > I thought that was the point. In your opinion, are we allowed to decide what kinds of email we accept? -- Joe
