In a message dated 08/28/2000 11:41:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

<< No
matter; either way, I'd suggest that the folks using Navistar as an ISP
look around for a less self-righteous, censorship-happy ISP. That assumes,
of course, that their censors let any anti-Navistar email through. >>

Joe, Joe, Joe,....

Navistar isn't an ISP. A simple visit to navistar.com will solve this
mystery for you. They made that 18 wheeler which is "tooting its
noise-making device" at you. So if you want any truck-manufacturing LX200
users to get your emails, watch your (light reddish thing behind your teeth)

:-)

More seriously, it was probably the result of a few lawsuits by employees
feeling they were degraded by viewing a co-worker's email. If you've ever
worked in a heavy manufacturing environment and seen how some people are
treated, you'd realize the complaint might have been justified. And no, I'm
not saying that the censorship reaction was right or wrong, nor should it
become a matter of discussion here on this list...but it was clearly just
another corporation adopting a cost-effective policy to keep from being taken
to the cleaners by employees and attorneys. Employers, ISPs with
configurable filters, and individual users all should become adept at
filtering.

So when emails bounce back from filtering, don't assume it was from an ISP
trying to squash freedom of speech. In this case it clearly wasn't. If a
subscriber wants to not be censored on the incoming side, they maybe
shouldn't have subscribed at work. Then again, I don't think they missed
much!


John
MAPUG admin

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Superwedge........, R. A. Greiner
Next message: [M]: 12 inch collimation, D.Ray East
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: (OT) Navistar rejected my message!!!, Bill Nicoll