Received: from darkone.comintern.net (darkone.comintern.net [213.148.1.98]) by veda.it.uu.se (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) with ESMTP id f6O7Muq22177 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:22:56 +0200 (MEST) Received: from newxa.comintern.net (newxa.comintern.net [213.148.1.25]) by darkone.comintern.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f6O7NMl244563 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:23:22 +0400 (MSK) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:23:15 +0400 From: Alexander Yemelyanov X-Mailer: Undisclosed Reply-To: Alexander Yemelyanov Organization: Comintern I.S.P. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <26401864320.20010724112315@comintern.ru> To: Anders Andersson Subject: Re[2]: http://www.desctopsticker.net In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3260 Dear Anders Andersson, Tuesday, July 24, 2001, 9:28:00 AM, Anders Andersson -> Alexander Yemelyanov: AA> A landlord may very well refuse to let a person rent a flat [...] AA> or by otherwise giving the residential area a bad reputation) Agreed, but this is a matter of balance between customer discrimination and other reputation concerns, so there has to be a certain point of mutual concession. For now, having studied such documents as bills and codes related to spam, adopted or being discussed (http://www.spamlaws.com/state/de.html, http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/opindisp.cfm?docid=694168MAJ), we have adopted our policy as described in the previous message, i.e. not to refuse web hosting service to customers based on evidence that they advertise their sites via UBE, as long as our mail (SMTP) capabilities are not used for that purpose, and they honour unsubscription orders without fail. AA> See for AA> their policy on this. I don't necessarily agree with their position AA> in every detail, but I want you to be aware of the strong reactions AA> from people subjected to junk e-mail, so that you can protect your AA> own business accordingly. Thank you for pointing out. Our policy is indeed more tolerant, and I hope that we won't have to be pressured into what we consider overreaction. AA> As this particular spam wasn't sent via your network, I will not AA> hold it against you, but I suggest not advising your customers to AA> put "removal instructions" in unsolicited e-mail (if that is indeed AA> what you do; I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to tell me). We believe that it's necessary, and that in particular, spam without a clear description of how to unsubscribe from it is that very harm for reputation we can't tolerate even if we merely host the site. You see, there exist two polar 'radical parties': one one hand, "wild" spammers who spoof message headers, use false subject lines, ignore complaints, don't honour cease orders, etc. On the other hand, there are anti-spam activists who seem to be acting under the "kill them all!" mood, and often (in our opinion) overreact. Usually, in a clash of the extremes, a mutual concession is the key. It is bad that people get a lot of junk mail. However, were it completely useless, spammers would not exist - in other words, there are users who do read UBE and sometimes take advantage of the offers, thus confirming e-mail as a valid advertising medium. If anything, I personally would say that the only way to oppose spam (either in e-mail, paper mail, or anywhere) is to teach people not to read it. AA> Getting back to the original message I asked you about, why did you AA> tell SpamCop the issue was "resolved" (if that is indeed what you AA> did) Actually, I have no idea as of how it appeared on SpamCop. Possibly they've got a forward of my correspondence with the complaining people, or our customer in question contacted them. Besides, we do require our customers to treat complaints as cease orders as well, so in a way it can be said that by establishing that we and our clients are cooperative, the issue is, at least partially, resolved. Best Regards, Alexander Yemelyanov, Comintern I.S.P.