mailing list archives
Re: Stealth Blocking
From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:15:28 -0700
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:41:52PM -0400, Mitch Halmu wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2001, John Payne wrote:
If you believe everything you read in slashdot, you're either incredibly
naieve or unbelievably clueless.
Conversely true for anything else you may read. I am not particularily
Like duh. But I'm willing to give more credence to what the people actually
endorsing any opinions but my own. Yet they seem to have scored with that
article, judging from the majority of the supportive comments I read.
/.'s supporting you. OK, thats it, you've convinced me. Free speach is the
way to go... I'm going to threaten to sue everyone who doesn't listen to
me from now on.
Just the smallest bit of research in a relevant mailing lists archives
would yield the reasons why macromedia was RBL'd and why the listing was
removed. (Macromedia runs unconfirmed mailing lists, mailing lists get
people added who don't want to be on the list, people complain to Macromedia,
no response, people nominate Macromedia to MAPS, MAPS contacts Macromedia,
no response, MAPS adds Macromedia to RBL, Macromedia contacts MAPS,
Macromedia promises to cleanup act, MAPS removes Macromedia from RBL)
And you think that justifies the brute force approach? Interestingly, MACR
What brute force approach? Nobody is forcing anybody to subscribe to any
seems to have the means to take them on legally. And perhaps also curious
Wonder why they didn't? Maybe because they knew they were in the wrong.
was the hush-hush way it was handled. Were it not for some clued spirits...