Re: SpamAssassin and OHA (was: [ox-en] SpamAssassin (was: OHA/ODA in English))
- From: Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <sloyment gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:44:29 +0100
Hi Stefan,
On Samstag 13 Dezember 2003 01:29, Stefan Merten wrote:
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."
And Jesus put it this way: "In everything, treat others as you
would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the
prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
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?
I think you are missing the point. The reason why one should
follow Kant's categorical imperative is IMHO not to actually
create a common law, but to self check ones own behaviour, and
to care about equal rights.
The rule appears to describe a system which
guarantees the optimum of freedom for everybody, without the
need of oppression.
What I try to say is that the most obvious feature of oppression
is inequality. Thus, a system of equal rights can not be
oppressive.
Ok, I made up my mind to think that OHA is mainly about rules.
I don't see in how far this is related to what I said.
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?
I did not say that. Please reread.
What I was trying to say is that in order to be oppressive, you
have to make use of inequality, willingly.
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.
I basically agree with its aim to keep totally unrelated stuff
off the list, and I think most people here do. However, if it
should turn out that there actually is any relation between
Vigara or pines enlamregent issues and free software, I think
the mails dealing with the comparation of both fields should be
relayed uncensored.
If the very same is done by the state we name this censorship.
This is not the same. I want nazis and pedophiles to be able to
express their ideas just as I am able to express my strange
ideas. Likewise, I would not want the state to suddenly start
censoring communists or free software advocates. This is just a
question of equality.
If totally unrelated mails are filtered off the Oekonux list,
this does not mean that their senders cannot reach their
audience, because the people on this list are not their
audience.
cu,
Thomas }:o{#
-- - http://217.160.174.154/~sloyment/ - --
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/