[ih] Update on filtered list posts

[Grant Taylor]

On 9/15/20 1:40 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote:
> All anti-spam is inherently censorship, so yes, this is censorship, 
> to be clear.

Not all {anit-spam,censorship} is {created,motivated,applied} equally.

There is a big difference in an objective {anti-spam,censorship,filter} 
such as "the posting email address must be from a valid domain name 
which can be verified as having an email server via DNS lookup" and 
subjective {anti-spam,censorship,filter} "haterid for the color blue (as 
in blue screen of death has annoyed us that much)".

> And yes, some types of censorship hide what they filter on - 
> specifically to prevent ‘gaming’ that mechanism.

I understand not wanting to advertise what's filtered.  But I do think 
that when asked, the powers that be should privately admit what happened 
to the effected parties.

I also feel like the same mentality behind security of the key material 
vs security of the algorithm applies here.

> The ISOC is censoring what they consider spam.

Is there a process to ask the ISOC if they are still seeing a spate of 
spam (being rejected) by the filter(s) / key word(s) in question?  Or if 
they would be willing to try removing it and re-addressing it if it 
becomes a problem again?

Governments add new laws and remove old laws all the time.  Things 
change.  Sometimes the old is no longer needed.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die