involuntary spam filtering: STOP IT! [PTN.20020226.0090F]

[Gary Lawrence Murphy]

>>>>> "K" == Kragen Sitaker <kragen@pobox.com> writes:

    K> I trust that the above is true, and it puzzles and offends me
    K> that you responded to it with (what I read as) accusations of
    K> dishonesty.

"Dishonesty" is a flexible term.  My issue was with the missing "or
not at all" and their non-explanation that "technology dictated" the
half measures, rather than the more "honest" admission that the
administrators themselves had dictated the use of half-measure
technology.

I do give them full nobility credit for their disclosure, though.
That is more honourable than far too many ISPs.

It's an unpopular opinion on both counts, but I believe banning spam
should fall under the same rule as banning the sale of cigarettes: If
it is an illegal activity, then there should be law against it, and
no amount of vigilantism can substitute in the absense of such a law.

-- 
Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@teledyn.com> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com
"Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso)