Subject: Re: spam

From: "John Loughney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:32:35 +0000

Hi,

What is a 'radical anti-spammer'?

----------

This is the _false_ assertion of
radical anti-spammers, who seem to me to be the abusers.  Chris Neill
(antispammer open relay abuser eventually fired from Verio--he was
ironically, an abuse admin) was shocked to learn he was't anonymous, like
he thought.

The claims made by antispammers about open relays are false. Type 1
spammers seem to get that, judging by their behavior.  But radical
antispammers don't.

		--Dean

On Wed, 28 May 2003, John Stracke wrote:

> Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> >We are lucky that spammers don't get a discount
> >
> Open relays give them a five-finger discount.
>
> --
> /===============================================================\
> |John Stracke      [email-masked]                        |
> |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                      |
> |Centive           |My opinions are my own.                     |
> |===============================================================|
> |"Power corrupts; Powerpoint corrupts absolutely." -- Vint Cerf |
> \===============================================================/
>
>
>
>

---

From: Richard Welty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:06:45 -0400 (EDT)

> What is a 'radical anti-spammer'?

it's a rhetorical device used when one wants to paint with an overly broad
brush.

cheers,
  richard
--
Richard Welty                                         [email-masked]
Averill Park Networking                                         518-573-7592
              Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:28:51 -0400 (EDT)

Radical anti-spammers, like other kinds of radicals, make unreasonable
demands, employ illegal methods such as extortion and terrorism (or
techno-terrorism, in this case), feel there is no other point of view
other than their own, and that other points of views can be supressed.
They feel that because the law won't give them what they want, that they
can employ whatever methods they feel like to achieve their goals.

Frequently, they do more harm to their goals as a result. For example,
Palestinian radicals blow themselves up. Radical Jewish settlers create
illegal settlements, and terrorize the local population.

When the leadership of a group doesn't repudiate and root out the
radicals, significant harm is done to their goals.

For example, the Israeli government repudiates and cracks down on illegal
settlements. While the Palestinian government doesn't repudiate the
Palestinian radicals. The result is a loss of credibility for the
Palestinians.  By contract, the actions of the radical settlers inflaming
the Palestinians is clearly harmful to Israel, but has little effect on
the credibility of the Israeli government.

Some might think it is inappropriate to compare violent terrorism to
techno-terrorism.  The difference is primarilly that techno-terrorism
doesn't result in loss of life. Just crashed computers.  But the mentality
is essentially the same.   Radical Anti-spammers are willing to give their
jobs and livelihood for their beliefs.

And like the Palestinians, the lies, abuse, and misdeeds of the radical
anti-spammers discredit the entire group, because the leadership refuses
to root them out. The leadership is itself radical.

		--Dean