[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 ]