nanog mailing list archives
RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police
From: Mathew Butler <mbutler () tonbu com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:31:37 -0800
The use of the phone isn't that difficult, it's the use of the phone to get someone -clueful- enough to a) recognize the request as valid, b) log the request for their records, and c) disable the filter. Customer service at many of the Tier-2 and Tier-3 providers usually isn't, in my experience. -Mat Butler -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:ssprunk () cisco com] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 11:16 AM To: Roeland Meyer; 'Shawn McMahon'; nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Then again, nobody here seems to be suggesting mandatory filtering. Why is there such a strong objection to opt-out filters, where a single call or email can get the filters turned off? Is using a phone really that difficult?
Current thread:
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police, (continued)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Mike Johnson (Nov 21)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Jason Slagle (Nov 21)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Shawn McMahon (Nov 22)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 22)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Dan Hollis (Nov 22)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Shawn McMahon (Nov 22)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Mathew Butler (Nov 22)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Steve Sobol (Nov 22)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Mathew Butler (Nov 27)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 21)