From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:35:52 +0800
To: Ross Wright <rwright@adnetsol.com>
Subject: Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
In-Reply-To: <199609122357.QAA24466@adnetsol.adnetsol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960912185335.4035G-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> >
> > However, since others may think like you, I guess I'll have to add a line
> > above my link stating that email not related to the purpose of my site
> > will be happily proof-read at the rate of $200 per hour,
> 
> Just great.  That sure takes away any anonymity you had about being 
> "on the cutting edge" of the information age.  That 1952 "proof-read" 
> crap went out in the 70's.  How can you hope to enforce it?  It's a 
> joke, right? :)  Maybe not, since it's on your sig-line.
> 

It was sarcasm. I don't hope to enforce it. And I don't 
have a sig-line.

> 
> Sorry, Wombat.  As much as I hate to agree with this multi level 
> long distance phone company spammer.  He is right.  A website is an 
> open invitation to comment and e-mail.  Better password your site if 
> you want to solve this problem.  Then no-one can visit it, and no-one 
> can send out a spider to get your e-mail address.  That's what I do, 
> send out a robot to bring back e-mail addresses.  Of course I only 
> send to makers of software, and my product applys to their world.
> 

Comment is one thing. Mass junk mail is another. I'd view "comment" as 
expressing an opinion. If I put an "email to:" tag on a web site, I'm 
inviting "comment" on the information I've placed in public view - 
there's reasonable expectation that the "comment" will be pertinent, even 
if it is only "Your automated gif sucks." This isn't quite the same as 
inviting completely irrelevent junk mail, and I still fail to see how 
you make this leap of logic.

You are on a public mailing list, aren't you? You have some degree of 
expectation as to the pertinence of topics discussed on said list, don't 
you? Even if it is c'punks? The same holds true for newsgroups. The vast 
majority of 'net users dislike off-topic discussion; they subscribe to 
mailing lists and newsgroups to discuss topics of relevence and mutual 
interest. It is highly self-centered of you to assume the "right" to 
waste their time with unwanted and completely off-topic communication. 


> If you don't want spam in your mail box:
> 
> 1. Don't have a website or don't put your e-mail address on your 
>     website

1a. Set up a robots.txt file. See http://www.info.webcrawler.com. Polite 
robots will comply, though I doubt spammers building mailing lists will be 
polite.

> 2. Don't post to newsgroups

2a. Actively exercise YOUR freedom of speech to disuade spammers. Contact 
their ISP. Forward a complete copy of the spam; this lets the ISP see 
what's being sent where, and fills up their mail spool too. Most ISPs 
will decide that the spammer can take his/her business elsewhere.

> 3. Don't post to mailing lists
> 4. If you post do so anonymously

Oh, so now I MUST remain anonymous, or I invite any and all 
correspondence regardless of relevence. Seems like your exercising of 
your rights is compromising mine.

Laws restrict freedom. They determine what we cannot do without fear of 
penalty. Some individuals exercise their "right" to freedom of action to 
the extent that they harm others. This causes those "others" to 
willingly/grudgingly give up some of their own freedom of action in 
exchange for protection.

When you exercise your "right" to free speech to the extent that you piss 
off a large segment of society, society will react by reducing its 
measure of freedom of speech. You have a right to speak your message, but 
you do not have the right to spray-paint it on the wall of my house. You 
may broadcast your message on the airwaves, but are subject to some 
restrictions. You once enjoyed the "right" to fax anything you wanted to 
send to my fax machine. Enough junk mail was sent to enough fax machines, 
and now many jurisdictions have another LAW restricting this behavior. I 
don't want to see legislation come to the 'net, but it will, and your 
attitude hastens it.

The long-term result of your abuse of your "right" to free speech is the 
invitation of government meddling into my right to free speech.

- r.w.