Either way, the RBL is based on content - spam is content
No, spam is _unsolicited_ email, it matters not what is in it - begging letters, adverts, MMF schemes, newsletters, or anything else. If you have not solicited, it is spam. "Content is not the issue."
If the list is overly broad, as it may be in this case, then stuff that isn't spam is getting blocked on content as well
No, it is a block on origin, not content. If I killfile abc@xyz.com in my newsreader that is not a block on content either, but on the origin.
Just because the courts have said they aren't common carriers doesn't make the courts right
No, but it means that they cannot claim common carrier status.
think about what life would be like if telcos decided that the 212 area code was offensive and wouldn't get to your phone for you to deice
I'd change phone companies. Where is 212, anyway? What you suggest is not based on the content that might come down the 'phone line if I made/received a call from there (for that to be the case they'd have to be bleeping out whatever words they found offensive, or terminate the call when it got that way - see the difference between 'content' and 'origin'?).
RBL is based on the netblock, but the decision to carry or not carry the netblock is based on contect originating in the netblock, therefore it is making a decision based on the content at a fixed point in time. It's still a content based decision, it's just a question of when the content was examined
No. That would be the case if MAPS
a) blocked anything (they don't, they only publish a list); and
b) they only included the IPs relating to the spamming s/ware websites because they are selling spamware (they don't, they publish the netblock for media3 - not the content of those webshites that sell spamware).
No, you miss the point. Facilities exist to check that "Yes, that person does hold that card, his address is as given, and it has not been reported as stolen/missing."
1) AFAIK ISPs have not been established as Common Carriers in law in the US or any other country I know of (in fact in at least one country, recent cases seem to indicate quite the opposite, but of course IANAL)
2) The ISPs (/backbones) are not choosing to carry 'based on content', they're choosing to do it on the basis of a list of IP blocks.
*bong* MAPS does not block email
*bong* MAPS does not block you viewing whatever you like
I suggest you read what they do actually do before making public statements.
AFAIAA the RBL may be used to block any traffic, it is only a list of IP blocks. Most places use it to block email out of those blocks, some to also block other things, like web traffic.
Well the ISPs could start by checking the CC numbers they are given by the spammer. Facilities exist to do this but guess what - it costs to do each check, and they're just not prepare to pay.
Are people trying to replace HTML with XML? I don't know. My gf is currently using Cocoon & XML to generate HTML & WML pages dynamically, from the same data which surely is much of the point - how the data (read: content) is rendered doesn't need to be known by those who generate it. If you read good books on OO you would see much the same practice being promoted for developing s/ware too (think Model-View-Controller).
Slashdot Mirror
Either way, the RBL is based on content - spam is content
No, spam is _unsolicited_ email, it matters not what is in it - begging letters, adverts, MMF schemes, newsletters, or anything else. If you have not solicited, it is spam. "Content is not the issue."
If the list is overly broad, as it may be in this case, then stuff that isn't spam is getting blocked on content as well
No, it is a block on origin, not content. If I killfile abc@xyz.com in my newsreader that is not a block on content either, but on the origin.
Just because the courts have said they aren't common carriers doesn't make the courts right
No, but it means that they cannot claim common carrier status.
think about what life would be like if telcos decided that the 212 area code was offensive and wouldn't get to your phone for you to deice
I'd change phone companies. Where is 212, anyway? What you suggest is not based on the content that might come down the 'phone line if I made/received a call from there (for that to be the case they'd have to be bleeping out whatever words they found offensive, or terminate the call when it got that way - see the difference between 'content' and 'origin'?).
RBL is based on the netblock, but the decision to carry or not carry the netblock is based on contect originating in the netblock, therefore it is making a decision based on the content at a fixed point in time. It's still a content based decision, it's just a question of when the content was examined
No. That would be the case if MAPS
a) blocked anything (they don't, they only publish a list); and
b) they only included the IPs relating to the spamming s/ware websites because they are selling spamware (they don't, they publish the netblock for media3 - not the content of those webshites that sell spamware).
No, you miss the point. Facilities exist to check that "Yes, that person does hold that card, his address is as given, and it has not been reported as stolen/missing."
1) AFAIK ISPs have not been established as Common Carriers in law in the US or any other country I know of (in fact in at least one country, recent cases seem to indicate quite the opposite, but of course IANAL)
2) The ISPs (/backbones) are not choosing to carry 'based on content', they're choosing to do it on the basis of a list of IP blocks.
*bong* MAPS does not block email *bong* MAPS does not block you viewing whatever you like I suggest you read what they do actually do before making public statements.
AFAIAA the RBL may be used to block any traffic, it is only a list of IP blocks. Most places use it to block email out of those blocks, some to also block other things, like web traffic.
Well the ISPs could start by checking the CC numbers they are given by the spammer. Facilities exist to do this but guess what - it costs to do each check, and they're just not prepare to pay.
I realize not everyone will setup filters, but as long as I have them for me it isn't a problem anymore!
And that makes it okay?
Are people trying to replace HTML with XML? I don't know. My gf is currently using Cocoon & XML to generate HTML & WML pages dynamically, from the same data which surely is much of the point - how the data (read: content) is rendered doesn't need to be known by those who generate it. If you read good books on OO you would see much the same practice being promoted for developing s/ware too (think Model-View-Controller).
BBC News Online
All the more reason to use an anon. remailer or six. See http://www.publius.net/n.a.n.help.html for example.