[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Rich Felker]

On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 03:10:17PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> 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.

Well in the real world implicit consent is always what happens.

Rich