On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, April 25, 2014 02:26:22 Martin Rex wrote: > ... >> The DMARC policy scheme is actually censoring of a telecommunication >> between a messge sender and a message receiver through a telecommunications >> provider by some _outside_ third party. So in the US a p=reject DMARC >> policy might potentially be freedom of speech (1st Amendment) violation. > > No idea about the rest of it, but this is nonsense. The 1st Amendment to the > constitution is a restriction on government action, not on private action. > See http://xkcd.com/1357/ . Dear Scott, Strongly disagree. The US government failed to protect citizen's rights by not declaring ISPs common carriers. People's ability to meet and freely associate is now being steadily eroded by policies hostile to decades of neighborhood and small communities' normal meeting practices. This has nothing to do with someone being abusive and shunned. This is about ISPs taking greater control over content carried on the Internet. The usurping of control over Internet use is very likely to put democracy in greater peril as content control is taken over by an oligarchy. The TPA scheme would have allowed DMARC to shun abusers without impacting perfectly legitimate communication methods being used in support of our growing communities. Regards, Douglas Otis