, 2003-04-20
In which your columnist ponders the question, which is worst for the Internet: computer viruses, spam that advertises anti-virus products, or clueless anti-spam solutions.
Expand all |
Post comment
Nice Ad at bottom of page: On Cures That Are Worse than the Disease
2003-04-21
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Well that's a real help to the folks who are either completely ignorant of what their ISP does, or to rural users who don't have a whole lot of choice in the first place, now isn't it? 99.9999% of an ISP's customers have no clue as to who else uses their ISP's services.
So, can you, here and now, name each and every customer who uses 'your' ISP? I'm wagering the answer is "no", since privacy laws keep real admins from disclosing that information.
Therefore, why the pathetic arrogance? Lookit - Guilt By Association has been discredited in damned near every other arena of reality, so why inist on pursuing it here? After all, such a policy does punish the innocent as well as the guilty, and I strongly suspect you wouldn't be so high and mighty with your ideals if you were told to suffer a hellish DSL ISP switchover just because some arrogant "admin" at another ISP decides to get into a pissing match over which ISP's he likes and doesn't like.
Also, I'm further willing to wager that the bigger ISP's - Earthlink, MSN, AOL... places which certainly host untold scores of spammers, certainly aren't blocked at 'your' mail server, now are they? Oh, no... that would make 'your' ISP unusable to 'your' own customers.
Spammers suck - I refuse to defend them. OTOH, this arrogant attitude is certainly not going to solve the problem, and certainly isn't going to generate any goodwill or good reputation among the folks who largely think of Spam as something that goes in between two slices of bread.
/P
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/155/19553#19553