Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 2002)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: solicited vs. unsolicited mail
From: kim brooks wei <kimi @ kimbwei . com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 02:16:07 -0400
To: list-managers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <B90DCEA5 . 369DB%chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
References: <B90DCEA5 . 369DB%chuqui @ plaidworks . com>

On 5/19/02 8:28 PM, "Tom Neff" <tneff @
grassyhill .
net> wrote:

 service.  I am looking for something more like a proof of license to send.

Which implies someone/something is required to define "need" or "worth" of
what's being sent. And that's going to fundamentally fail, except on an
individual basis.

As an extreme example -- if a person wants a "proof of license" to send
child pornography, it's going to be rejected by any authority. But on a
fundamental basis, if you want to avoid censorship or bureaucratic biases of
any sort, if the recipient of that e-mail WANTS the kiddie porn

Well, at least in the US, it's illegal to handle kid p at all.
Sometimes it's great to be an American. I'm not sure at this point in
the game I need to worry about what all the rest of the world's kid p
laws are.

But here, it's a simple fact of life that even if someone wants it,
he's not supposed to have it and both the sender and the recipient
can get in trouble!

that
license should be granted. To do otherwise simply creates a system where you
no longer have "send it only if I accept it" but a bureaucracy of some sort
that defines "send it only if it's acceptable".


In any event, kid p is also an issue best handled by the police. Your
example, Chuq, also speaks to mail that is solicited.

What is an issue we can better address, is how to protect our inboxes
from a growing amount of UNSOLICITED garbage mail, which isn't a
problem only for the recipients, but for the information flow around
the world and is a BIG HEADACHE for ISP and webhosting managers.

--
Please be well.

Kim Brooks Wei    ?    P O Box 626 ? Fair Lawn ? NJ  07410   ?    V
201.475.1854



Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Charge?
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Next: Re: e-postage again
From: JC Dill <inet-list @ vo . cnchost . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: e-postage again
From: kirk Bailey <idiot1 @ netzero . net>
Next: Re: solicited vs. unsolicited mail
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com