| |||||||||||||
Mission creep - bad exampleMission creep - bad examplePosted Oct 21, 2010 12:21 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)In reply to: Mission creep - bad example by copsewood Parent article: How not to recognize free hardware My point was not that spam blacklists are inherently evil or blocking innocent people's mail or anything like that. Rather, if the list of known-spammer hosts is bulked up with the addition of other sites which are not sending spam (but have perhaps offended the list operators in other ways) then it becomes less useful for its original stated purpose, that of filtering inbound mail to discard definite junk, and fewer people choose to use it. The blacklisting services will generally put their blacklists into different domains based upon different selection criteria, or will provide different return codes to enquiries for different blacklisting reasons.In that case, of course, the user of the service can decide which of the blacklist categories to pay attention to. They could decide to only block mail from the 'yes, this site is definitely sending bulk mail' list and ignore the 'these people are Spam Supporters because of reason XYZ' list. So perhaps my complaint is out of date; I was still thinking of a single list. Back to the original topic, it would be great if there were one basic 'this hardware uses with free software' mark and a separate one for '100% compliant with FSF dogma'. But that's not going to happen, at least not from the FSF.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||