SpamAssassin and OHA (was: [ox-en] SpamAssassin (was: OHA/ODA in English))
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:29:39 +0100
Hi ThomasUG, Rich and all!
Finally back to this topic ;-) .
2 months (61 days) ago Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
On Saturday 11 Oktober 2003 03:24, Stefan Merten wrote:
I mean the spammer *is* oppressed by SpamAssassin.
I don't think so.
There is a simple rule how to self check ones own behaviour,
stating that one should behave in a way everybody could do. This
rule has been expressed by several people, most prominently by
Jesus and Kant.
IIRC Kant put it that way: "Act in a way that the maxim for your
action could be the foundation of a common law." When I re-read that
categorical imperative today I wonder why we need a *common* law. I
mean this is exactly the way to create some kind of super structure -
e.g. a state. Is that really necessary? If so, why?
The rule appears to describe a system which
guarantees the optimum of freedom for everybody, without the
need of oppression.
Ok, I made up my mind to think that OHA is mainly about rules.
Relevant questions are
* How are these rules created?
Of course this includes questions like:
- Who makes the rules?
- What purpose these rules are made for?
- How do rules develop?
* How are these rules implemented?
This includes the application of force. If anybody find any way to
cleanly separate between oppression and application of force I would
really be interested. However, I'm quite convinced: There is none.
* Who is subject to those rules?
In a state every inhabitant of the land covered by a state is
subject to these rules. More and more I think this is a not so good
principle.
Actually since discussing this topic virtually nobody denied, that
there "must be rules". Of course this means that there must be ways of
implementing these rules - otherwise they are pointless. Also I'd like
to note that al this can be applied to an individual setting up rules
for his/her own behavior as well as rules for groups of people. May be
this is a point we can start off with.
Of course rules mean exactly some structuring of an otherwise
unstructured space - the freedom of unlimitedness. This structuring is
oppressive as well as it is empowering. You need *some* structure of
the world to do anything at all - and each structure may prevent you
from doing things which might be done in an unstructured or
differently structured space.
More and more I think along the following lines:
* A community has "the right", may be even the duty to set up some
rules for it
A community must have rules even to identify itself. For instance
the major rule of the Oekonux community is that people here are
interested in the topics Oekonux is discussing (to be short). If
such a rule would not exist the Oekonux community could not be
distinguished from a structureless group of people and there would
be no point is speaking of an Oekonux community at all. So this
example shows how a rule is necessary to even setup some community.
Actually I think this is something which is hardly disputable. A
community has "the right" to setup some rules for itself - as well
as each individual has.
Also this is different from the categorical imperative of Kant.
Whereas Kant draws on some *common* law these rules only apply to a
certain community.
* Everybody inside or outside this community has to respect these
rules or otherwise may be subject to some negative consequences
In a way this is some sort of self-defense. Also I'd say everyone
who does not comply to the rules of the community s/he's interacting
with is alienated from this community. Again I think alienation is
the key aspect here.
Thus I think that actions that comply with the above rule cannot
be called 'oppression'; oppression requires at least that the
above rule is broken.
So you are saying oppression is given only if a rule is broken. What
if there are conflicting rules?
If I throw away the spam I receive, I
don't hurt the right of other people to do the same with the
mails they don't want to read. Therefore, I would not call this
'oppression'.
In this case you make a decision for yourself. However, the
SpamAssassin protecting the Oekonux lists decides *for others* whether
they receive a mail or not. If the very same is done by the state we
name this censorship. I can't see how this very same action can be
distinguished in any sane way so I would call it oppression in both
cases - or at your choice in no case. I mean everybody sending mails
to these lists has some intention to inform the people behind the mail
address about something - be it that he is able to get some V*a for a
very low price. Denying that is oppression - or what you would call
it?
Last month (56 days ago) Rich Walker wrote:
For instance spam. I think it is perfectly clear that spam to the
Oekonux lists is as clearly alienated to the goal of Oekonux as
something can possibly be. Thus implementing power structures such as
SpamAssassin to stop spam is taking responsibility for the goals of
the project. By Holloway's definition I guess it would be instrumental
or creative power completely depending on the side you are currently
looking at. I mean the spammer *is* oppressed by SpamAssassin. And
that you implement your power structure in software does not strip the
power structure off. I find this aspect of Holloway particular weak.
Umm;
Spam is a parasitical oppression on a communal service agreement or
Commons.
Yes.
Removal of spam is as much oppression as is forcing someone who has been
networking their business all through the meal to pay their share of the
bill.
I'd even agree that spam is some kind of application of force also.
SpamAssassin is a defensive structure, like a 2-handed shield. I don't
think it can be used to oppress another, only to isolate the user.
Ok. Would you agree that defensive structures are also some kind of
force? Perhaps they are more often structural as for instance a fence
is. But can't be a defensive structure as for instance a fence or a
wall can be oppressive? What if the wall separates the ones dying from
hunger from the food? What if patents which defend the right of the
inventing corporation to make profit denies their general use?
Actually I doubt whether the concept of defense really helps us here.
It depends too much on which side you are on and where your sympathies
are. Thus it is not very useful for a general consideration - which
I'm interested in.
Well, all still quite raw thoughts. Hope it's useful nonetheless.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/