[email protected] (Gadi Evron) writes: > On 5/25/10 2:24 PM, Jim Murray wrote: >> - The system should interpret no reply as 'I don't want any more >> messages from this site, ever'. > > I think I'd be okay with "this message will repeat itself in one week, > once."
anything you plan to let anybody do, you must be prepared to let everybody do, even criminal spammers (as opposed, i guess, to this implicit definition of "noncriminal spammers"). whatever standard you set for e-mail input will be used by the people who sue you for blocking them, as evidence that you're part of a conspiracy in restraint of (their) trade. i've been sued about spam more than almost anybody. so when i talk about getting sued you should consider listening carefully, because i won't be listening at all to the people talking about spam who have not been sued as much as i have been sued, which is almost everybody. in order to prevent the conversation from being zero-sided, maybe pay attention to what i'm saying about precedents and principles: make the conversation at least one-sided, and then try to add more sides from there. don't remain ignorant and kneejerky about spam just because that's a comfortable zone to be in. don't let facebook do anything that you wouldn't like to let every spammer whether you'd call them a criminal spammer or not also do. spam is spam and the fine gradients that facebook and their apologists would like us to apply would prevent any real progress in establishing or protecting any real rights. make facebook set an example that you'd like every other bulk e-mailer, whether you'd call them a criminal bulk e-mailer or not, follow. -- Paul Vixie KI6YSY _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
