On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Earl Cooley wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
For this to be taken seriously one must be able to -define spam- as if it were a mathematical entity (eg a 'point'). It must be absolutely differentiable from -all- other speech.
You can't do that, nobody can.
Well, actually, SpamAssassin calculated that Carl's original post was spam. Here's the breakdown:
Content analysis details: (3.50 points, 3 required) MORTGAGE_BEST (2.6 points) BODY: Information on mortgages HTML_40_50 (0.7 points) BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is red HTML_WEB_BUGS (0.1 points) BODY: Image tag with an ID code to identify you HTML_MESSAGE (0.1 points) BODY: HTML included in message HTML_RELAYING_FRAME (0.5 points) BODY: Frame wanted to load outside URL HTML_FONT_BIG (0.1 points) BODY: FONT Size +2 and up or 3 and up HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is blue KNOWN_MAILING_LIST (-0.9 points) Email came from some known mailing list software MIME_HTML_ONLY (0.1 points) Message only has text/html MIME parts
That's really useful, right? heh.
:) There is an old saying that one becomes what one hates. Personaly, I'm opposed to any legislative responce. Nada, none, nil. I don't agree that whatever the cost at the personal level it will be less than the increase in taxes to pay for the additional officers, legal support staff, etc. In particular I don't like the aspect of making it a crime. There is no way you're going to convince me that irrespective of the level, it's worth sending black clad stormtroopers into peoples lives. Especially when that includes the potentail for people dying. No, sorry. Ain't gonna happen. It violates both speech and press aspects of the first. And to be clear 'press' in the Constitution isn't the news agencies. Thomas Jefferson made that perfectly clear. It's the right of people to share their activities with others. People have a right to speak their mind, and they have a right to share it with others. To base that right on content is an abrogation of the fundamental ethos of this nation. There is of course the concepts of harassment and trespass. Of which we have sufficient laws on the book already. What we do need is a good case and a couple of supporting court rulings. In particular people have a right to ring your doorbell or drop a note on their porch, or ring their doorbell to talk to the residents. When they do it in a confrontational manner, by say ringing your doorbell over and over. This of course is one reason I am completely opposed to blacklists as well. Not only is there no technical or legal backing with respect to speech, but their probing of my system after I tell them to stay away is a form of trespass. Let's not even get into the aspect that this is one of the primary channels of Open Relay machines around. They do all the work and then sell the list, to who? Your ISP and spammers. If they didn't exist each spammer would have to scan the net for relays IP by IP. But no, for some reason people think it's a good idea. People have the right to the pursuit of happines, not the attainment or retention of it. It's simply not the governments job to protect what you have from simple market alteration. Stability in that respect is a bad thing. It denies others pursuit of happiness with the goal of the individual. There are some things that aren't a question of majority view. Sometimes that only means all the idiots are on one side. It has no moral or ethic weight. Get over it and move on to something more important. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------