[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Saturday, 27 May 2006 at 04:42, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 09:34:16PM -0400, Jason Tackaberry wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 12:19 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:02:53PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann'
> > > Mierzejewski wrote:
> > > > I'm not discriminating. It is up to me to decide who I let into my house,
> > > > isn't it? Or are you claiming to have the right to enter my house any time
> > > > you like over my objections?
> > > 
> > > No, we claim the right to email people receiving internet connectivity
> > > from your business, people who want to receive our emails.
> > 
> > Throughout this discussion, Dominik has been arguing from his
> > perspective as an end user who decides what mail to let into his
> > mailbox, while you have been arguing from the perspective of a business
> > who is setting policy on the mailboxes of its users.
> 
> My understanding is that Dominik believes a business has the authority
> to set policy for its users, and that the users implicitly consent to
> this either by being unwilling to switch to a different ISP (even
> though they rarely have a choice) or because they don't even
> understand the issues involved...

I know I said I wouldn't prolong this thread any longer, but you're wrong
about my standpoint. I believe an entity has the authority to set policy
for its users if and only if they delegate that authority to that entity
explicitly (and why are you using the word 'business' anyway? it's true for
every mail admin, whether for a business or not) as long as that policy is
clear. If the users can't be bothered to understand what it means then it's
their problem, but implicit consent is out of the question.

Regards,
R.

-- 
MPlayer developer and RPMs maintainer: http://rpm.greysector.net/mplayer/
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
	-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan