Re: [cobalt-users] RE: OT ** ORBZ **

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Francisco Sánchez wrote:

> That is one step closer to the wonderful Orwell's society.  Do you feel
> safer now?

I never felt unsafe in the air.  Perhaps it wasn't a good analogy
either.  I fly more now than I ever did in the five years preceeding
what we've come to call "9/11".

> Good for you, but take a few minutes and thing of how many ways
> terrorists can harm...  airplanes only?  Sure you now don't feel that much
> safe...

Even as of September 12, 2001, airplanes were still the safest method of
travel over the preceeding 12 months.

>  What next? Increse security in buses, trains and boarts?

I'll answer that below, after one of your following statements...

> Fortunately you have chosen to be opened to the world and I believe that is
> the best of choices.

Currently my data-transit costs are determined by outgoing traffic,
because in hosting/colocating, I send a lot more data out than I bring
in.  However, if I were an access ISP (and I was until I sold out about
1-1/2 years ago), and my costs were determined by incoming traffic, I'd
probably be blocking spam.

> No.  You are talking about very extreme situtations.

Extreme situations that have never happened to me, but which have
happened to good friends of mine.  It happens a lot to medium-sized
access ISPs.

> I believe that spam could simply be stopped by the power of law.

You really don't.  See your own sentence above, about increased security
in busses, trains and boats.

> I do not
> know what kind of law you have for this in the US, but I do know that 90% of
> the spam we receive come from there and with a beautiful notice at the end
> saying that it complies with the US Congress legislation.

The notice is a hoax.  There's NO SUCH LAW.  Spammers lie.  And cheat. 
And steal.

> Instead of
> blocking and flaming, why don't people whe receive spam with these nice
> notices write to their representative or senator and complain and ask for a
> strict legislation?  We have enacted recently a law for this and commercial
> mailings are only allowed to people who have voluntarily subscribed to a
> list.

And what do you do when people break the law?  I maintain the law is
completely unenforceable.  Except by ISPs who use it as an excuse to
block.  I don't know about every country in the world, but here in the
US we don't need a law to give us permission to protect our own
property... probbly goes back to our early pioneer days.

BTW, California has such a law.  Totally enforceable.  Costs me money to
enforce.  And there's no guarantee I'll get money when I win; we don't
have debtors' prisons, and even if we did, I wouldn't get any money out
of it.

> Nothing about "you may unsubscribe at http://...... " and the such.

There's nothing in the U.S. that legalizes unsubscription links.  The
spammers have been lying to you, and you've been believing them.

> Of course we would still face the 10% of spam that comes from Asia... but
> solving a 90% of the proble would be a good start.

I don't know about you, but I find by count that almost 80% of my
incoming spam comes from servers in asia.  Again, how do you enforce
your law?

Frankly, while I certainly am NOT a blind American patriot, and while I
do question my government every day, I do appreciate living in a country
that gives me the freedom to determine who walks onto my property.

And I will block spam if/when it becomes better than the alternative.

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Linux and Cobalt/Sun/RaQ Consulting
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 778-9980  *  fax: (702) 548-9484