[Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?

[Brad Knowles]

At 7:58 AM -0800 2006-03-04, Dave Crocker wrote:

>  All sorts of things are "mandatory for all AOL users".  For example,
>  the entire AOL spam detection and filtering mechanism is mandatory.

	Actually, it's not.  You can opt out of the spam detection and 
filtering mechanism, if you so choose.

	I don't think you can opt out of the paid spammer solution from Goodmail.

>  If AOL users find any of the mandatory features unacceptable, they should
>  take their business elsewhere.

	Also agreed, but as we both know, that's unlikely to happen for 
most of the AOL users, regardless of what AOL chooses to do to them.

>  If they don't do that, then who are we to be parental and tell them that
>  a particular feature is unacceptable for them?

	When a particular feature sets a heinously bad example for the 
others to follow?

>  That's why you should note the "constant community vigilance" requirement
>  I stated in the other note I just sent.

	But that vigilance isn't going to be there.  Goodmail's operation 
is kept secret, locked behind a private door.  Same for AOL.  And if 
we're not going to stand up for the AOL users against the abuse that 
AOL is going to do to them (or allow others to do while they are paid 
to look the other way), then who is?

>  It is also why I am a big fan of real competition, since it provides a form
>  of community vigilance.

	Agreed, but such competition is not going to be found.  Not at 
Goodmail, not at AOL.

>  Oh.  You mean regardless of complaints from external lobbying groups who
>  are not AOL customers and who have so far been showing a really excellent
>  skill at invoking hyperbole and ignoring facts.

	No, I mean the only people who are speaking up on behalf of AOL 
users who are being categorically lied to and hoodwinked by their ISP.

	Or do we need to get into quotes from Rev. Martin Niemoller?

>>      If AOL wants to convince anyone that this is actually a real
>>  benefit, they need to do at least two things:
>
>  You claim to know what everyone in the world requires for convincing?

	All the complaints I've seen so far would be answered by these 
two steps, so far as I can tell.  So, yes -- I'm pretty convinced 
that these are the two necessary steps.

>  Since the world is a large and diverse place, it is always possible to find
>  an example of pretty much any behavior one wishes to describe.  Using that
>  example as proof of the inevitability of the behavior is simply not valid,
>  because it also means that there are always counter-examples.

	The problem is that human history is rife with examples of this 
kind of abuse by those in power of those who have no power, for as 
long as human history has existed.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

  LOPSA member since December 2005.  See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.