[hashcash] Re: anti-spam collateral damage

Eric S. Johansson wrote:

> The stand that mail servers are private property is what I call a 
> libertarian illusion.  

I think it's about as much of an illusion as the Apollo moonwalks.

> If you take the stance that contact points (telephone, house door,
> mailbox, mail server) are private property and nobody can contact you
> without your permission, then you will lose the advantage of anonymous
> contact. And if you don't think there's any advantage, think about
> cards, letters, phone calls, visits from people that know someone that
> you know or you have forgotten about.

I take the stance that my contact points are just that: _MY_ contact
points. At work my office has a receiptionist who can: 1) screen phone
calls, 2) screen visitors, 3) screen mail. At work we also have a mail
server that can screen email. Both the mail server and the receiptionist
interpret a completely (within reason) customizable policy, whether it
be organizatonal, departmental or personal.

Even though my contact points are filtered I can (and do) receive
contacts that I didn't pre-authorized.

If your ISP filters email you want, complain. If they don't listen, get
a new ISP. Don't institute an email 'Bill of Rights', until there is no
other way to avoid abuses.

-Dave
-- 
GNU GPL: "The source will be with you... always."

Other related posts: