> -----Original Message-----

> 

> Great you're following this. I think the design of a system can have some

> properties that makes is harder or easier to infringe on rights. 



I don't. Rights are not technical protocols, they are legal, political and societal constructs. A technical protocol tells you how to block a domain; it is very difficult , probably impossible, for a protocol to dictate _why_ you block a domain. 



> To make the

> analogy to spam: when I receive spam in my spamfolder, I can still read it.

> Spam that is blocked, I cannot read.



That's an analogy. But RPZ is not a spam filter. As McTim pointed out, the whole purpose of RPZ is to block domains, not to set them aside 



> With RPZ I think there is a risk that content get's blocked because people

> don't like it, not because it's malware. And it does so without the consent of

> the user, or even without informing them.



In some cases, the user is the blocker. It might be possible for the RFC to specify that users who attempt to access RPZ-blocked domains would receive a warning or an explanation.