On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Olivier Nicole wrote: > I don't see it as a problem of freedom of speech, but at a problem of > pointing finger at some companies saying "those are bad guys". > > We know they are, but as soon as you publish their name/IP/URL there > is a risk for you as the one pointing at them.
All the more reason for caution in making accusations. It's like newspapers describing someone as an "alleged" bankrobber, to avoid being sued for libel. If SA's default tags were adjusted to say "possible unsolicited commercial email" (or similar), it's (a) simply advising users about the *possible* nature of the email's content, and (b) using calm, justifiable language. This would seem to be particularly fair because SA does occasionally tag some false-positives, who could quite reasonably complain about being described as "spam". If there are concerns of legal action from organizations who object to their software/URL/etc being identified as "problematic", maybe these could be separated into a file containing various Red Lists, which is then optionally loaded by SA. If push ever came to shove, these Red Lists could even be posted on an alternative site, to take the heat off SA and its developers. Ian _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
