Re: Opt-out ? we do know the "bounce" command...

[Jan Meijer <]

leo vegoda wrote:

> Previously, Piet Beertema (Piet.Beertema@localhost) wrote: Re: Re: Opt-out ? we do know the "bounce" command...
>
> >    >More seriously I would suggest "don't". If the Parliament Members get
> >    >p*ssed enough they could stop listening completely to any sane opinion
> >    >on spam and email and make even more insane descisions.
> > What do you mean by "could stop listening completely"?
> > Sofar I haven't seen much evidence that they're listening
> > at all to sane opinions.
> I expect most MEPs aren't interested in the spam issue. Then again,
> most MEPs are probably not interested in most issues. That's why
> Partliaments have committees; members join the ones they are interested
> in. They vote as their whips tell them for the issues they aren't too
> interested in. 

However, I expect a number of MEPs to be interested in freedom of 
speach, and spam-fighting tends to infringe the freedom of speach right.

Imho the only way to prevent serious damage to a right I like very much 
is to manage spam.  Perhaps more people think like this, and perhaps it 
would be interesting to make it clear to MEPs freedom of speach is at 
stake here as well.


> I suspect it would be more useful to have meaningful meetings with those 
> few people than to bombard dozens or hundreds of members with all the 
> spam subscribers to this list receive.

Well, it would familiarize them with the problem.  Remember the US 
congressman/senator (sorry, memory-fault) who suddenly found out what 
webfiltering meant when large numbers of potential voters could no 
longer reach his *own* website because he had put porn-on-the-net issues 
in his program, and other things the filtering software considered to be 
bad-for-you (tm).

This experience changed his opinion quite drastic.

Jan