You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: automated spam detection

  • To:
  • From: Piet Beertema < >
  • Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:12:49 +0100

    There is also a constitutional protection of ownership.
Ownership of what?

    Any unwanted mail violates this, in other words it is theft.
If you mean that it steals resources, then I agree
with you about the principle, not about the legal
implication that you can sue the perpetrator for
that. When we wanted to use this as a point in the
formal complaint we filed last year when we were
victim of a spammer, we were told that we would
make no chance with this whatsoever. If you have
hard cases where this *could* be used, I'd be most
pleased to hear the details.

    Sending bulks of unwanted mails in these terms is a seveire
    theft since it produces costs of many thousands Euro.
And how many zillions of euro's are wasted on news
articles that people download and regard as crap
after reading them? Is that theft or an "acceptable
consequence" of reading news?
    Banning the sending of unrequested bulk-mailings is banning
    of theft.
Is bulk mailing spam by definition?
When is a mailing a bulk mailing?
Just some "minor" issues...


  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>