[PLUG] Communities (was Covad DSL?)

[Bill]

So maybe we need a geek solution for the Winblows and Mac users--how about 
a proggie that does what spamassassin does, but without the necessity of 
running a mail server, and with graphical configuration?  Or maybe 
spamassassin works without and mail server and I just don't know it.  But 
something very like spamassassin, that could run in the background on a 
Winblows/Mac system, and filter mail as it hit the folders (before 
Outlook's filtering kicked in, or instead).  If it's free and easy to set 
up, enough people might use it to persuade ISPs not to do dubious 
filtering schemes.  This could also get rid of vbscripts that make changes 
to registry/startup files (and just what in the pluperfect hell was M$ 
thinking when they had their scripting engine promiscuosly run anything, 
including stuff that made major alterations to system files!!???!!  Though 
this did increase the demand for tech support workers, which used to keep 
food on my table).

Bill

On 19 Jul 2003, Derek Loree wrote:

> On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 13:40, Fedor Pikus wrote:
> > On 19 Jul 2003, Derek Loree wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 08:52, Ed Sawicki wrote:
> > > > Spam aside, there's a basic belief about the Internet that
> > > > most people on the net have - that the Internet SHOULD
> > > > allow anyone on the net to communicate with anyone else -
> > > > that insulating yourself from a segment of the net
> > > > population is wrong. Perhaps this larger issue should be
> > > > discussed before we declared spam-fighting strategies as
> > > > right or wrong.
> > I don't think that this is the basic belief, at least, not the
> > common interpretation of this. This statement would imply that I have
> > to listen to what everyone has to say, whoever they may be. I can never
> > walk away from you or tune you out because I "SHOULD allow anyone on the
> > net to communicate with anyone else" including myself.
> > I always interpreted that "should allow anyone to communicate with anyone"
> > belief as applying to the middleman, to everyone who is not the party to
> > this communication. For example, my ISP should not block the whole China
> > IP range. But on my own machine I have every right to do it.
> > 
> > > I'm not denying that spam is a problem, but blocking out huge blocks of
> > > addresses is similar to what AOL is doing with the whole internet.  Once
> > > your filters are in place, how would you know if someone from China or
> > > Brazil has tried to send you legitimate email?
> > There is a difference. AOL is imposing its restrictions on others, on the
> > people who are trying to communicate with each other. I, on the other
> > hand, have a right to decide whom do I want to communicate with. As far as
> > legitimate mail getting caught in the filters... first of all, for myself
> > I am the only one who can define "legitimate". If I don't want to talk to
> > you, that's the end of it. You have freedom of speech, I have freedom not
> > to listen. Second, again, for myself, I am the only one who can determine
> > the value of a possible legitimate mail I never get to see, and whether
> > the loss outweigths the gain.
> > 
> > > I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just looking for the reasoning that would
> > > lead someone to implement such aggressive blocking.
> > If it's the ISP blocking agressively, or any other sort of middle man,
> > then I don't think there is a reasoning (unless they do per-client blocks
> > and client is the one actually configuring it, then it's like the end user
> > blocking and the ISP just provides the tools and the labor).
> > If the end user does the blocks, the reasoning is very simple. This person
> > does not want to talk to some group of people. He has that right. Respect
> > it.
> 
> The problem is that the individuals are turning to the ISP's for help,
> and the IPS's are turning on the filtering to "help" their customers. 
> Just like AOL is "helping" their customers enjoy the internet.  I don't
> know of any ISP that is not doing any filtering.  Some are even
> filtering ports for their costumers, allowing no incoming requests to
> any ports (even if you pay for a static  IP address).  If you want to
> run any kind of server (like ssh, apache, or postfix), you have to
> "upgrade" your service.  Some ISP's are filtering by attachment type,
> any attachment that has certain 3 letter file extensions will be dumped.
> 
> A manifestation of this is incorrectly applied filters on the ISP
> level.  This leads to all kinds of strange problems and creates serious
> doubts about the ability to send and receive email.  Just last week, one
> of my clients could send mail to Malaysia, but Malaysia couldn't send
> mail back to my client.  It turns out the Malaysian ISP had applied spam
> filters meant for incoming mail to the outgoing mail, not the incoming
> mail.  So even though my clients subnet was on a Malaysian black list,
> the email got through.  The Malaysian user was the one experiencing the
> problem, by legitimately replying to legitimate email.
> 
> So, I agree, every individual has the right to choose how and with whom
> to communicate, but that choice has very little meaning if it is
> compromised by the ISP's.  Especially if the ISP's are using a method
> that changes over time, then the individuals will have no way of having
> the knowledge necessary to make the choices.  I know the mail account I
> have with my ISP is useless because I never know at any particular time
> what is being blocked and what isn't.  I have to keep checking it
> though, it is the only way my ISP will communicate with me. 
> Fortunately, they don't block any ports, and I am able to run my own
> servers (and so far the netblock seems to be staying off the
> blacklists).
> 
> Anyway, I'm starting to ramble.
> 
> Derek Loree
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>