FC: John Gilmore on Earthlink, anti-spam rules, and censorship

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 22:23:41 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: More on Feds hacking computer in Russia, from SecurityFocus"

    Previous Politech message:
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03961.html
    
    Also, here's an excellent essay on spam that John wrote back in February (I 
    even quoted from it in my weekly column that will appear on News.com in a 
    few hours):
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03204.html
    
    -Declan
    
    ---
    
    Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 10:39:19 -0700
    From: John Gilmore <gnuat_private>
    To: annaleeat_private, politechat_private, gnuat_private
    Subject: Re: Earthlink's anti-spam censorship
    
    Earthlink has been blocking all mail from "toad.com" for years --
    despite toad not even being on the Internet any more.  (I now get my
    email via uucp, because an anti-spam zealot at Verio canceled my T1.)
    
    Earthlink has a little "enemies list".  Whether you are on the list is
    unrelated to whether you send spam.  I've never sent spam in my life,
    but there I was on the list.  I had about a dozen friends using
    Earthlink, who left and got accounts elsewhere so I could communicate
    with them.  Each of them tried having a discussion with Earthlink's
    "customer service" about why Earthlink was preventing them from
    receiving email from their friend (me).  But they got "serviced" by
    Earthlink the way barnyard animals get serviced, so they left.
    
    A simple rule for anti-spam measures that preserves non-spammers'
    freedom to communicate is: No anti-spam measure should ever block a
    non-spam message.  But there isn't a single anti-spam organization
    that actually follows this rule.  Instead they block non-spam messages
    (such as every message from an "open relay"), as a coercion tactic, to
    "encourage" those sites to change their policies.  I refuse to be
    coerced, and you should refuse too.
    
    The policies of some of these organizations have gotten increasingly
    bizzare.  My DNS registrar was blacklisted because they let anyone
    register a domain.  Yes, it's true.  Anyone who pays them the small
    fee can register a domain, and it stays registered until they stop
    paying.  It's a radical idea; you pay your money and you get the
    service you're paying for.  That idea was too good for the
    anti-spammers.  Instead, they wanted the registrar to somehow ensure
    that no spam message ever referenced any domain registered by that
    registrar -- or immediately cancel the domain if a spam message ever
    did.  "Do that or we'll blacklist you."  Raving idiocy.
    
    Don't believe reports, such as the one Declan reposted from Suresh
    Ramasubramanian, that "most ISPs around the world block [mail from]
    open relays".  When toad.com was on the net, mail from it would get
    through to almost everywhere, despite being blacklisted by most of the
    zealot blacklists.  The blacklists are not very pervasive, because
    they block so much legitimate mail that customers won't put up with
    them.
    
    EFF ran "SpamAssassin" on its internal mail for a while; but it marked
    an entire issue of our Effector newsletter as "spam", due to bogus
    rules like "Too many capital letters" and "Discussions of how to
    unsubscribe".  It also marked or deleted important messages sent by
    individuals to our lawyers.  Most EFF staff got rid of it.
    
    Skipping spam is quick.  Figuring out that someone's communication to
    you is being censored, and recovering from that, is hard.  Particuarly
    when it's being done automatically by some middleman who doesn't
    actually care whether you can communicate -- like Earthlink.  Luckily,
    most telephones aren't carried through the censored Internet, so at
    least when you don't reply to someone's email, they can phone you to
    ask you what's up.  Email queries about why you aren't answering just
    get thrown away by sites like Earthlink, for the same reason they
    threw away the original message.
    
    Anti-spam is to Internet freedom as anti-terrorism is to Constitutional rights.
    The most ridiculous justifications are routinely accepted and believed.
    The lemmings all cheer when somebody restricts our freedom to communicate
    "because of spam".  Thanks, Annalee, for exposing Earthlink's fraud.
    
    	John Gilmore
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
    CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays: http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.html
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 09 2002 - 00:07:33 PDT