NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] "Transparency" (was: "Re: Re: Comcast Mail Blocking Issues Related to DynDNS")
This discussion highlights the basic nature of a very serious problem. The folks on this list can be generally assumed to be among the more "clueful" on these topics, yet untangling these situations can be a mess even for us. Now think about what these and a range of other Internet-related issues look like to "ordinary" consumers without a background in Internet technology. From their standpoints, many ISP policies seem (and in fact often are) utterly arbitrary and confusing, whether embodied in supposedly clear Web page explanations or typically impenetrable TOS agreements. Most subscribers don't have ready access to ISP officials like Comcast's Jason, and much of the time receive wrong information or the the equivalent of blank stares when contacting their giant-ISP tech support centers. It's not only important that ISP operations, policies, and performance characteristics actually *be* transparent (which is unfortunately generally not the case today), but Internet users need to be able to "access" related information about these factors in reasonable and reliable ways. You can't see through even a beautiful clear pane of glass if it's covered with an opaque blanket. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator > Walt Daniels wrote: > > Besides these attempts at blocking what ISPs think is spam, some, Optonline > > for example, are also blocking mail from mailing lists that I have > > subscribed to UNLESS the list has paid SenderSource to white list them. It > > took me awhile to figure out why I was not getting mail sent to a mailmain > > list server I run. In this case a private list of 6 people working on a > > project of which I am one. They want me to pay them $500 to whitelist my > > list and swear that everyone has double opt-in, etc. It turns out that they > > had turned on spam blocking on my account, without every asking me. When > > turned off, I now seem to be getting mail from my list again. But I am not > > sure if that is the full explaination. It may just be that they had too > > little traffic from that list for it to get a reputation. > > $500 to whitelist a mailing list? That's about as wrong-headed as can > be. It should be up to individual users to decide what to whitelist, > and they should be able to turn spam control on and off. That amounts > to "pay us $500 and you can spam our users all you want." > > > The central common thread is a complete lack of transparency. > > Amen to that, brother. Spam filtering should be _available_ to users if > they want it, but it should not be turned on by default. And users > should be able to fine-tune it -- set the level of match required before > messages are blocked or tagged as spam. > > At least I found out what was tagging my incoming (non-spam) mail as > "spam". The anti-virus program that was installed by the shop that > built the computer was doing it. I have turned off its spam filtering > -- I figure Thunderbird does a better job. Their spam filter responds > to "spam" and "not spam" buttons in Outlook Express and some program I > never heard of called "The Bats--t" or something like that. But not to > Thunderbird. > > I'm planning to contact their support line anyway. The initial license > period (with free updates) is almost over. If they can make it link > with Thunderbird, I will consider renewing. If not, it's back to Norton > (or maybe AVG) for me.