Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 18:41:12 Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 25, 2014 02:26:22 Martin Rex wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >> The DMARC policy scheme is actually censoring of a telecommunication
> >> between a messge sender and a message receiver through a
> >> telecommunications
> >> provider by some _outside_ third party.  So in the US a p=reject DMARC
> >> policy might potentially be freedom of speech (1st Amendment) violation.
> > 
> > No idea about the rest of it, but this is nonsense.  The 1st Amendment to
> > the constitution is a restriction on government action, not on private
> > action. See http://xkcd.com/1357/ .
> 
> Dear Scott,
> 
> Strongly disagree.  The US government failed to protect citizen's rights by
> not declaring ISPs common carriers.  People's ability to meet and freely
> associate is now being steadily eroded by policies hostile to decades of
> neighborhood and small communities' normal meeting practices. This has
> nothing to do with someone being abusive and shunned.  This is about ISPs
> taking greater control over content carried on the Internet.  The usurping
> of control over Internet use is very likely to put democracy in greater
> peril as content control is taken over by an oligarchy.

I didn't say it was a good idea.  I said it wasn't unconstitutional.  No all 
constitutional ideas are good ones.  It's a case of law, not fundamental 
rights.

Scott K