Re: spam
- From: Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 08 Apr 2008 10:51:58 +0300
quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> writes:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:20:05 GMT, Aatu Koskensilta
<aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-04-07, in sci.math, quasi wrote:
All the main commercial news servers pride themselves on completeness,
i.e. -- they filter _nothing_. If you want to set up filters on your
end, that's up to you.
Many commercial news servers do filter spam.
And many don't.
Their reason is partly to protect themselves from being sued.
If they filter content, that means they _look_ at content, which means
they can be held liable for illegal content (for example movies,
software, mp3s).
Their defense has always been that they _don't_ look at content.
It's funny how you're changing your argument from with almost
every post. You've now changed it to "content filtering",
for example. Those of us who are paying attention will have
noticed that you're wiggling. Looking at content is irrelevant
when it comes to whether you honour 1st and 2nd party cancels,
or whether you honour NoCeM messages, for example.
One problem is that you've sucked up the marketting kool-aid
that many companies have put out. They will insist that they
do not filter, on one hand, whilst they simultaniously are
happy to admit that they remove spam in order to improve the
QoS. So they are selectively removing some posts, but aren't
"filtering" - damn that kool-aid tastes good. Even the software
that most of them use, Spam Hippo, equivocates this way: it
"removes [spam] in massive quantities." and yet it "is not
a filter".
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: air jordan 23 fusions,ajf23,air jordan 23 and air force 1
- Next by Date: Re: -- spam, Google, news servers and news readers
- Previous by thread: Re: spam
- Next by thread: Re: spam
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
