TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: EFF: Anti-Spam Measures Block Free Speech

Re: EFF: Anti-Spam Measures Block Free Speech

Ed Clarke (
20 Nov 2004 02:18:15 GMT

In article <>, Barry Margolin wrote:

>> This is absolutely on purpose. Collateral Damage is a necessary
>> technique to rid the net of spammers. If you give money to a company
>> that facilitates spamming then you are no better than a spammer. Move
>> the damn website to an IP range owned by a company that does not spam.
>> Let the spam supporting service providers go broke because they have
>> no customers.

> Where does it say that this is the reason why's mail is
> being blocked? One of the other problems that the white paper
> mentioned is mailers that assume that any bulk email is spam -- but
> legitimate mailing lists will necessarily send out bulk email.

They are on abovenet. Abovenet is listed (twice) in SPEWS and also
in SPAMBAG. There's a whole blacklist just dedicated to abovenet:

This does not bode well for connectivity to is
a specific case that I had not looked up before you mentioned them.
My posting refers to collateral damage as a valid antispam technique
in the general case.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: "Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits"
Go to Previous message: Robert Bonomi: "Re: Somewhat Off Topic But a Must Read"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "EFF: Anti-Spam Measures Block Free Speech"
Next in thread: John Levine: "Re: EFF: Anti-Spam Measures Block Free Speech"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page