This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] spam definition
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Sun Apr 11 13:50:49 CEST 2010
On 10/04/2010 14:32, Jeffrey Race wrote: > Legal systems are ineffective in dealing with this > type of issue for well understood structural reasons. > See > > <http://www.camblab.com/misc/univ_std.txt> > based on > <http://www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf> > > > I disagree. It is of course more timeconsuming, but legal systems (should) give everyone a fair chance. Franks witch-hunt suggestion is exactly what I don't want. Legal systems also pursue the party that is legally doing something wrong, not the ISP or any other third party that shouldn't be bothered in the first place (of course sometimes it is the ISP etc). A lot of what you would define as spam isn't spam at all in legal terms. The company I work for block this spam too (only the spam, not the entire provider), but we would certainly not punish or file a lawsuit.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] spam definition
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]