Mailing List Archive

In summation the Bill of Rights (1-10 amendments) protects (or is
supposed to protect) the life, liberty, and property of the individual
from abuse by the newly created government and are commands of the
people to this governments' servants.

If I tell one child not to draw on the walls with crayons does that mean
that it's okay for another child to do so? I think not! So, when the
people command their government not to trample their rights, this in no
way gives permission for others to do so.

It is not okay, for say, Antifa, to rob my store. Government was
instituted to protect the innocent from others while not abusing the
innocent itself.

The 1st Amendment is not a right, it's a command from the people to the
central government. That's why it's illegitimate to say, "I have a 1st
Amendment right."

The words of spammers are complete B.S. They rob people of time and
money by clogging legitimate communications, email. It's like a third
party continually interrupting a conversation two people are having.

Basically rights are things that my Creator has authorized me (and
others) to do. Spammers are not authorized to interrupt communications
between consenting parties. Their interruptions waste our livelihood. We
could be spending time in more profitable endeavors. So, basically,
spammers are thieves.

To Google and other social media: The terms of their establishment
dictate that they cannot prevent free speech. These institutions are
acting as arms of the establishment in pushing the official narrative
and silencing descent.



On 11/19/2020 2:25 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Afternoon Everyone,
>
> So over the years, I have gotten a lot of complaints from spammers
> about how I'm breaking their 1st amendment rights by blocking their
> spam as free speech.  I've had to explain that I'm not the government
> and hence there are no 1st amendment rights involved.
>
> However, my friend, Steve Effros, just wrote a far more eloquent
> article about it and I thought others on this list might appreciate it:
>
> https://www.cablefax.com/regulation/first-things-first
> <https://www.cablefax.com/regulation/first-things-first>
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>

On 19 Nov 2020, at 14:25, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail@apache.org> wrote:
> So over the years, I have gotten a lot of complaints from spammers about how I'm breaking their 1st amendment rights by blocking their spam as free speech. I've had to explain that I'm not the government and hence there are no 1st amendment rights involved.

A whole lot of people have decided their right to free speech means an obligation from others to listen to them. It's not just spammers, it's also racists, fascists, republicans, and god-botherers.

Just because a spammer has the right to speak does not mean I have to listen. I am within my rights to drown them out with a loudspeaker while I stand next to them so I can't hear them, because that is MY rights to free speech.

And, of course, their rights to free speech do not apply to anything but government interference. It does not apply to mailing lists, Twitter, web comments, and it does not give them the right to access my server and deliver crap to my users/accounts.

> However, my friend, Steve Effros, just wrote a far more eloquent article about it and I thought others on this list might appreciate it:
>
> <https://www.cablefax.com/regulation/first-things-first>

It's a good summary.

--
IT WOULD BE A MILLION TO ONE CHANCE, said Death. EXACTLY A MILLION TO
ONE CHANCE. 'Oh,' said the Bursar, intensely relieved. 'Oh dear.
What a shame.' --Eric

On 11/20/2020 9:28 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
> A whole lot of people have decided their right to free speech means an obligation from others to listen to them. It's not just spammers, it's also racists, fascists, republicans, and god-botherers.
I think you should keep politics out of this.  If I want to hear
opinions from the liberal-left, I'll be sure to circle back with you. 
That's not what this is about.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, AJ Weber wrote:

> I think you should keep politics out of this.

+1

*PLEASE*

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
174 days since the first private commercial manned orbital mission (SpaceX)

Am 20.11.2020 um 15:59 schrieb AJ Weber:
> On 11/20/2020 9:28 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
>> A whole lot of people have decided their right to free speech means an obligation from others to
>> listen to them. It's not just spammers, it's also racists, fascists, republicans, and god-botherers.
> I think you should keep politics out of this.  If I want to hear opinions from the liberal-left,
> I'll be sure to circle back with you.  That's not what this is about.
To all: please also rememember that this list is international and not every corner of the world is
interested in the way the current conflicts in the U.S. are handled.

Or, in other words, the Nth amendment is part of the U.S. constitution, for me as a german  my own
constitution is the guide-rail. And yes, it allows me to block spam.....
And yes, please let us keep politics out of this list.

JC

It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their
actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify what
they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves, albeit wrongly.

It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison politics
(and religion) and have no justification (only personal preference) for
what they do. Curious!

At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who
oppose them.

On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
> It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their
> actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify
> what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves, albeit
> wrongly.
> It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison politics
> (and religion) and have no justification (only personal preference)
> for what they do. Curious!
> At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who
> oppose them.


I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam
collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties, and
moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that THEIR
greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs are often
in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite beliefs, but
likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR "greater good".
Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is justified and, instead,
I believe that NONE of them are justified in sending spam - spam is
about *consent* - NOT *content*.

--
Rob McEwen, invaluement

> On Nov 20, 2020, at 4:45 PM, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
>> It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves, albeit wrongly.
>> It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison politics (and religion) and have no justification (only personal preference) for what they do. Curious!
>> At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who oppose them.
>
>
> I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties, and moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that THEIR greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs are often in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite beliefs, but likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR "greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them are justified in sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.

I mean, remember campaign and I believe non-profit stuff in the US is EXEMPT from CAN-SPAM, so they don’t even have to play by the rules.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/candid-answers-can-spam-questions <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/candid-answers-can-spam-questions>

First amendment stuff is going to be very fun with this current crop of federal judges and the SC. A recent ruling said public health interests can be overruled because “masking” is somehow restricting speech, lol.

Charles

>
> --
> Rob McEwen, invaluement
>

On 11/20/2020 4:59 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> non-profit stuff in the US is EXEMPT from CAN-SPAM, so they don’t even
> have to play by the rules


still, that doesn't give them a free pass to the inbox, or prevent them
from potentially getting listed on an anti-spam list. MANY spammers that
are blocked by spam filters and/or listed on anti-spam lists - were
already CAN-SPAM compliant. Being *legal* is a very low bar for email,
especially in the U.S.

--
Rob McEwen, invaluement

It's a given people on this side of the argument don't like spam, your
conclusion being correct, it still comes down to preference. They prefer
sending spam you prefer they didn't.

They, ERRONEOUSLY, justify sending spam using a political argument
(*their protected right), our side is rejecting politics and its origin,
religion; so, it still comes down to preference, and ultimate authority
rests in man. It comes down to, "Who is to say?"

I argue, and I think the original post argues against their position. I
also argue that the political (based in the religious) needs to be
brought bear to refute them.

I agree with the original post that they improperly use the 1st
Amendment for justification but for the wrong reasons.


*Note: According to the founding documents of the u.S. rights come from
the Creator.

On 11/20/2020 2:45 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
>> It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their
>> actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify
>> what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves,
>> albeit wrongly.
>> It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison
>> politics (and religion) and have no justification (only personal
>> preference) for what they do. Curious!
>> At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who
>> oppose them.
>
>
> I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam
> collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties,
> and moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that THEIR
> greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs are
> often in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite
> beliefs, but likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR
> "greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is
> justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them are justified in
> sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.
>

I think this argument is sort of odd.  Here is my take:


You have a right to say what you want.

I have a right to ignore you.

Spam filtering allows me to exercise my right to ignore you.

jay  plesset, IT director. D. P. Design

On 11/20/2020 3:59 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
> It's a given people on this side of the argument don't like spam, your
> conclusion being correct, it still comes down to preference. They
> prefer sending spam you prefer they didn't.
>
> They, ERRONEOUSLY, justify sending spam using a political argument
> (*their protected right), our side is rejecting politics and its
> origin, religion; so, it still comes down to preference, and ultimate
> authority rests in man. It comes down to, "Who is to say?"
>
> I argue, and I think the original post argues against their position.
> I also argue that the political (based in the religious) needs to be
> brought bear to refute them.
>
> I agree with the original post that they improperly use the 1st
> Amendment for justification but for the wrong reasons.
>
>
> *Note: According to the founding documents of the u.S. rights come
> from the Creator.
>
> On 11/20/2020 2:45 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
>> On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
>>> It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their
>>> actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify
>>> what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves,
>>> albeit wrongly.
>>> It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison
>>> politics (and religion) and have no justification (only personal
>>> preference) for what they do. Curious!
>>> At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who
>>> oppose them.
>>
>>
>> I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam
>> collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties,
>> and moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that
>> THEIR greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs
>> are often in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite
>> beliefs, but likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR
>> "greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is
>> justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them are justified in
>> sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.
>>

And...

Ultimately, does the Creator--the author of rights--sanction the
harassment of and theft from others by spammers.

On 11/20/2020 4:59 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
> It's a given people on this side of the argument don't like spam, your
> conclusion being correct, it still comes down to preference. They
> prefer sending spam you prefer they didn't.
>
> They, ERRONEOUSLY, justify sending spam using a political argument
> (*their protected right), our side is rejecting politics and its
> origin, religion; so, it still comes down to preference, and ultimate
> authority rests in man. It comes down to, "Who is to say?"
>
> I argue, and I think the original post argues against their position.
> I also argue that the political (based in the religious) needs to be
> brought bear to refute them.
>
> I agree with the original post that they improperly use the 1st
> Amendment for justification but for the wrong reasons.
>
>
> *Note: According to the founding documents of the u.S. rights come
> from the Creator.
>
> On 11/20/2020 2:45 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
>> On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
>>> It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their
>>> actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify
>>> what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves,
>>> albeit wrongly.
>>> It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison
>>> politics (and religion) and have no justification (only personal
>>> preference) for what they do. Curious!
>>> At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who
>>> oppose them.
>>
>>
>> I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam
>> collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties,
>> and moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that
>> THEIR greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs
>> are often in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite
>> beliefs, but likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR
>> "greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is
>> justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them are justified in
>> sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.
>>

On 11/20/20 5:02 PM, Jay Plesset wrote:
> You have a right to say what you want.

s/You have/You (largely) have/

There are specific things that are forbidden by law. E.g. yelling fire
in a movie theater when there isn't a fire.

> I have a right to ignore you.

Hear! Hear!

Also, it's my /personal/ and /private/ email server. /I/ will run it
the way that /I/ want to. If that means that I decide not to accept
your email, then so be it.

I'm /not/ preventing you from sending your email to anyone else. Ergo
I'm in no way, shape, or form, infringing on on you. Though it is sort
of ironic that thousands of other email administrators also think like I
do and are deciding not to accept your messages.

¯\_(?)_/¯

> Spam filtering allows me to exercise my right to ignore you.

#truth



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Dealing with spam from spammers takes up time that could be spent doing
profitable tasks. In other words it wastes resources not only of the
end-user having to sort through 100 bad emails to get to 2 good emails
(which I've dealt with) but for IT departments having to spend hours
trying to defeat them.

Spammers are thieves plan and simple.

On 11/20/2020 5:56 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 11/20/20 5:02 PM, Jay Plesset wrote:
>> You have a right to say what you want.
>
> s/You have/You (largely) have/
>
> There are specific things that are forbidden by law.  E.g. yelling
> fire in a movie theater when there isn't a fire.
>
>> I have a right to ignore you.
>
> Hear! Hear!
>
> Also, it's my /personal/ and /private/ email server.  /I/ will run it
> the way that /I/ want to.  If that means that I decide not to accept
> your email, then so be it.
>
> I'm /not/ preventing you from sending your email to anyone else. Ergo
> I'm in no way, shape, or form, infringing on on you.  Though it is
> sort of ironic that thousands of other email administrators also think
> like I do and are deciding not to accept your messages.
>
> ¯\_(?)_/¯
>
>> Spam filtering allows me to exercise my right to ignore you.
>
> #truth
>
>
>

On 2020-11-21 04:59, Jakob Curdes wrote:

> To all: please also rememember that this list is international and not
> every corner of the world is interested in the way the current
> conflicts in the U.S. are handled.


well said!

>
> Or, in other words, the Nth amendment is part of the U.S.
> constitution, for me as a german  my own constitution is the
> guide-rail. And yes, it allows me to block spam.....
> And yes, please let us keep politics out of this list.
>

and as an Australian, the right to block spammers was supported by the
courts a very long time ago (those of us old enough i'm sure remember t3
direct who insisted he had the right to spam and not be blocked - but
the courts ruled otherwise)

That said, our own Spam Act also excludes charities, pollies and
religions - however we still have a right to
filter/trash/block/not-deliver their trash to inboxes, its just those
orgs cant be prosecuted.

On 20201120 18:35:35, noel.butler@ausics.net wrote:
> On 2020-11-21 04:59, Jakob Curdes wrote:
>
>> To all: please also rememember that this list is international and not
>> every corner of the world is interested in the way the current
>> conflicts in the U.S. are handled.
>
>
> well said!
>
>>
>> Or, in other words, the Nth amendment is part of the U.S.
>> constitution, for me as a german  my own constitution is the
>> guide-rail. And yes, it allows me to block spam.....
>> And yes, please let us keep politics out of this list.
>>
>
> and as an Australian, the right to block spammers was supported by the courts
> a very long time ago (those of us old enough i'm sure remember t3 direct who
> insisted he had the right to spam and not be blocked - but the courts ruled
> otherwise)
>
> That said, our own Spam Act also excludes charities, pollies and religions -
> however we still have a right to filter/trash/block/not-deliver their trash to
> inboxes, its just those orgs cant be prosecuted.

It's worth noting that based on what these loud-mouths are saying they have not
really read the US Consitution carefully in at least their lifetime. All they
know is what their favorite pundit says the constitution says when said pundit
is itself ignorant or is intentionally biased and trying to use outrage to
increase viewership. Americans, at least, should read what they are prattling about.

{o.o}   ( <- has an unfortunate habit of revisiting those words rather often. So
I am led to shake my head ruefully and laugh at the same time over the ignorance
and extreme bias and indeed "projection" I've seen posted here.)

One thing to be aware of. There is no 1st Amendment Right associated
with any business entity or private person. The guarantees apply to
US government and whether or not they can censor what you say.

I would suspect governments use something more advanced than SA that costs
thousands of times more and in the end, works no better than SA.

Also, a government employee isn't necessarily required to let you
say anything you want if it wastes their time or they are uninterested.

Spam wastes everyone's time and resources in dealing with it.

When business and government are in bed together to silence dissent then yes it is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Under the terms of their establishment certain businesses cannot prohibit dissent (freedom to speak).

Private individuals have no authority to prohibit freedom of speech.

People misunderstand freedom of speech. John Adams stated that, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

In light of this, it's funny, sad really, that people pull the "freedom of speech" card to justify immorality.

Or, when some use the "no political or religious speech here" tactic, they are actually denying legitimate and authorized speech and unwittingly calling for chaos and lawlessness.



On Nov 20, 2020, 10:16 PM, at 10:16 PM, "Linda A. Walsh" <sa-user@tlinx.org> wrote:
>One thing to be aware of. There is no 1st Amendment Right associated
>with any business entity or private person. The guarantees apply to
>US government and whether or not they can censor what you say.
>
>I would suspect governments use something more advanced than SA that
>costs
>thousands of times more and in the end, works no better than SA.
>
>Also, a government employee isn't necessarily required to let you
>say anything you want if it wastes their time or they are uninterested.
>
>Spam wastes everyone's time and resources in dealing with it.

Keep in mind that freedon of speech says that you can stand in the park on a soapbox and shout.

It does NOT say that passers-by are forced to stand there and listen to you until you run out of voice. They can walk away any time they want to.

It also does not say that the local newspaper is required to take down everything you say and print it on the front page for all their readers. (But freeedom of the press says that they can, and you can't sue them for copyright infringement or much of anything else for doing so, even though people and organizations now try that.)

Whether any organization has an obligation to convey the voice in the park to all of its customers, or even a selection of them, is an interesting question. By and large, organiizations in the US have the rights of individuals, and that includes the right to walk away and stop listening. The major possible exception would be a "common carrier", which cannot disconnect a call because they don't like what is being said.

But ISPs are NOT common carriers. So even if the spammer is addressing spam to specific individuals, the ISPs, not being common carriers, do not have an obligation to deliver the spam.

Your freedom ends where my rights start.....

Long time lurker… sometimes poster:

The marketplace of ideas is a century old concept that goes back to the days of landmark U.S.S.C. First Amendment cases, and it is the “marketplace”’s duty to weed out bad ideas (such like SpamAssassin is doing).

But again, SpamAssassin isn’t infringing on anyone’s 1st amendment rights. It’s protecting people from speech they have already decided they have no time to listen to (on purpose – without government involvement).

Okay… back to lurking.

It's funny how in the times of the founders' they appealed to heaven,
today we appeal to men. No wonder we go astray.


On 11/21/2020 2:17 PM, Steven Manross wrote:
>
> Long time lurker…  sometimes poster:
>
> The marketplace of ideas is a century old concept that goes back to
> the days of landmark U.S.S.C. First Amendment cases, and it is the
> “marketplace”’s duty to weed out bad ideas (such like SpamAssassin is
> doing).
>
> But again, SpamAssassin isn’t infringing on anyone’s 1^st amendment
> rights.  It’s protecting people from speech they have already decided
> they have no time to listen to (on purpose – without government
> involvement).
>
> Okay…  back to lurking.
>

On 20 Nov 2020, at 07:59, AJ Weber <aweber@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/20/2020 9:28 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
>> A whole lot of people have decided their right to free speech means an obligation from others to listen to them. It's not just spammers, it's also racists, fascists, republicans, and god-botherers.
> I think you should keep politics out of this. If I want to hear opinions from the liberal-left, I'll be sure to circle back with you. That's not what this is about.

Since that is the argument spammers are making, it is EXACTLY what this is about.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Mr. Brain, but if the sun'll come out tomorrow, what's
it doing right now?"

Free Speech doesn’t require anyone to pay for your soap box or megaphone.

But Spam is exactly that: having other people subsidize your speech through the theft of services.



> On Nov 19, 2020, at 2:25 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Afternoon Everyone,
>
> So over the years, I have gotten a lot of complaints from spammers about how I'm breaking their 1st amendment rights by blocking their spam as free speech. I've had to explain that I'm not the government and hence there are no 1st amendment rights involved.
>
> However, my friend, Steve Effros, just wrote a far more eloquent article about it and I thought others on this list might appreciate it:
>
> https://www.cablefax.com/regulation/first-things-first <https://www.cablefax.com/regulation/first-things-first>
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> KMcGrail@Apache.org
>
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>