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] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] size DOES matter (sorry, had to use this subject :o)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thor Kottelin
thor.kottelin at turvasana.com
Mon Dec 19 17:31:34 CET 2011
> -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of russ at consumer.net > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 5:29 PM > To: <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > Under US law if you block someone and tell them to > make > their ISP do something to get unblocked that is technically > extortion. As an online discussion about network abuse grows longer, the probability of someone comparing blacklisting to extortion approaches 1. (With apologies to Mike Godwin.) Under the law over here, extortion involves a threat as well as a benefit to which the recipient has no legal right. -- Thor Kottelin http://www.anta.net/
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] size DOES matter (sorry, had to use this subject :o)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]