On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 23:01 US/Pacific, Alan Hodgson wrote:
you should use SPEWS if you choose to block ISP's who are spam supporters
Which should be read as:
You should use SPEWS if you want to participate in the bullying of "the little guy".
SPEWS sucks. If there's a such thing as "non-violent terrorism*", SPEWS is its poster child.
(* and I'm not one who jumps on that cliched post-911 bandwagon -- it's terrorism precisely because it uses the same pattern of harming individual bystanders as a means to motivating a larger authority to change its actions.)
How exactly is a host that knowingly and willingly provides services to a spammer innocent? It seems to me that vitriol should be directed towards those providers that rake in the spammer money each month and use their "innocent bystander" clients as shields.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
