On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote: > > A mailserver can harm _others_. > > I totally agree. Which is why I'm all for only allowing arbitrary > entities to determine who can and can not run a mail server. What we > need is more control, more censorship, more penalties, and less > interference from subvertive terrorists who try to route their mail > around the system. The only reason they have to be doing something like > this would be if they had something to hide. I believe that their > computers should be confiscated and their citizenship revoked.
Let's turn this around: why should *I* be forced to accept mail coming from a dynamic IP, when statistically such mail appears much more likely to be spam or viruses? Who are you to tell me that I have to accept such mail? (If it's not obvious why direct mail from dynamic IP addresses is a favourite tool of spammers, it should be.) This is *not* censorship, by the way. Censorship is when the government represses your speech. Assuming you're American (I'm not), you have a right to free speech, but that does not imply having a right to force other people to publish or listen to your speech. People need to stop misusing the term. > Oh yes, and blacks to the back of the bus, please; just be happy we let > you on at all. It's a weak argument that requires a comparison to racism to be heard, not to mention that it demeans the plight of those affected by racism. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
