[brlug-general] Blocking port 25 does not cure spam problems.

[willhill]

We should not aspire to be like China.  As long as networks use public 
servitude, they are yours.  Cox, ATT and friends are supposed to be your 
servants rather than your masters.  We should not have to bow and beg for 
things that harm no one.  If you ignore freedom in your persuit 
of "neutrality" or "choice" you won't get either.

A good case of censorship damage is DeCSS.  You can get it and it works but 
you have to go through a lot of trouble and you might not trust what you get.  
In the mean time, Microsoft and Apple can cheerily tell people that free 
software is not ready for prime time because it can't be used to watch 
commercial DVDs.  

On Sunday 23 September 2007 7:19 pm, Fernando Vilas wrote:
> ...
> The internet will route around it, partly because of the infrastructure
> itself, partly because of consumer movement inspiring competition on
> the "freedom" side of the offerings (net neutrality debates aside), and
> partly because places that restrict themselves will eventually be surpassed
> by other places that don't.
>
> One only needs look at what is going on in China, and to a lesser extent
> other countries, to realize that this is so.  Those that want the
> information find a way to get it in spite of things like TCP resets, which
> are worse than simple port blocking.  As a recent movie was fond of telling
> us, "You can't stop the signal."  Or in terms of the FLOSS movement,
> "information wants to be free"