At 03:10 PM 3/7/97 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
[note about terminating service to 77 juno.com users because he can't
get juno.com to respond/cooperate re behavior of 3 of their users]
I think you're overreacting.
You're trying to enlist others in a boycott/battle in which they have
probably no interest. You are punishing 77 innocent people, plus
the uncountable others who enjoy conversing with them, because of your
personal problems dealing with a slow-to-act ISP.
No, you are *forcing* them to choose. Support my boycott, or be gone!
How much pressure do you expect to put on juno.com by forcing 77 people
off your list for nothing they did? Those 77 aren't going to be mad
at juno; they're going to be mad at *you*.
Do you know how much fun it is to change ISP's, mailing addresses, and
all that? How many will do this just for the "privilege" of getting
back on your list(s)?
>Please don't complain to us -- it won't help, and the situation won't
>change until we're convinced juno.com DOES, in fact, police its users.
*NOBODY* wants an ISP that "polices" their mail for content. If nothing
else, the cost would be prohibitive. The best you can hope for is
after-the-fact action. Even then, if your complaint was the *only* one,
you shouldn't expect much -- from *ANY* ISP (especially one you are not
a customer of).
>Unfortunately, to date, all they've proven is that they won't. When
>that changes, we'll re-evaluate the situation. Until then, all we can
>do is encourage you to find an ISP that cares about its reputation and
>its users.
>
>My apologies for the inconvenience I know this will cause you, but the
>situation leaves us no choice.
Bull. You could have left your 77 well-behaved subscribers there, and just
(a) reject posts from the 3 offenders; and/or
(b) rejected new subscribers from juno.com.
You had plenty of choices.
I think your action was way overboard. At least, from what you've described.
Did anyone other than yourself complain to juno?
Stan
Follow-Ups:
|
|
