[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lawsuit threat against content

Hash: SHA1

[I am cc'ing this to newnet, as I have all of these (other then the first
message I sent.)  I am also cc'ing to the abuse address at snet "for the

On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, [...] wrote:

> Dear Mr Goldberg
> It seems that a junior administrator has been communicating with you
> under my name he has been summiraly dismissed

I will gladly publish and highlight this important statement of yours.
But I think that you will have a difficult time persuading anyone (myself
or anyone reading the web pages), but I wish to give you full
opportunities to respond and state your position.  If you wish to state
your position in a manner that is entirely under your control, I would be
happy to include a link on my page pointing toward your response.

> Though he was carrying out company policy [...]

If that is in fact your policy, then I stand by my claim that if
newnet.co.uk hadn't compelled you to do otherwise, you would be a
spam-friendly ISP, an ISP which allows spam from its customers.

> [...] which is strict due to ongoing governmental restriction issues
> that are trying to be initiated in this country,

I regret to say that UK government restrictions allow for remarkable
intrusion into people's on-line activities.  I have pointed that out in
a previous message to the "other" Rick Woolley (a correspondence you have
now read).  Let me also point out that there are ways to prevent or limit
spam from your customers without having to read their email.

> [...] his choice of words to your self were totally inapropriate.

Thank you.  I do take that as an apology for the words and tone and insult
in those messages.  I'm sorry that it has required my putting those words
on a website to get that apology, but it is an apology nonetheless.
Thank you.

> and though i do not necceseraly agree with your point of view i would ask
> you to get in touch with me at the above email address for the next week
> where i am on holiday over the xmas season.

Certainly.  I will, of course, continue to copy my replies to either sales
or abuse at snet.co.uk so that there can be no doubt that the personal
email address you gave me is read by you.  And I will continue to cc
abuse@newnet.co.uk so that they know what is going on.

> I was made aware of the communications he had entered into with you
> only late yesterday by our real senior administrator [who also was on
> holiday]

I'm sure that we all wish that this issue hadn't come up, and that if it
had to, then at least at a better time.  I also must say that you are a
large organization than I first anticipated.  May I ask how many people
work for snet?

> I hope this company and your self can have better relations and look
> forwards to talking over the complicated issues of spam and information
> access.

So do I.  But there are substantive areas of disagreement.  Your stated
policy (ie, allow your customers to spam unless that is illegal) does
qualify you as a spam-friendly ISP.

That fact remains whether or not you are polite or rude to those
who draw it to your (and the world's) attention.

And it is a fact which does have consequences for you irrespective of what
I do.  As I tried to explaim in my message which your doppleganger
responded with "?", the consequences of being a spam friendly ISP result
from the fact that tens of thousands of email managers around the world
block all mail from such sites.

I had hoped to impress Snet with the ethical argument for restricting spam
from your customers.  As you know my prior attempts failed.  But you have
a record of my messages, so there is no need for me to repeate them.


Jeff Goldberg

- -- 
Jeffrey Goldberg
I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice

#####-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.9.0 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/