On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Robert G. Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, David Morris wrote: > > > > > Your logic breaks over the fact that you got the message because of who > > you both know ... the ietf.org mailing list. It was not unsolicited mail > > from a party with which you have no relationship. > > But c'mon, I get plenty of mail from people I REALLY don't know and who > AREN'T on a list I'm on. So do lots of people. > > So his logic is just fine. Well, I don't read such mail if I can avoid it ... I have never received email of value where there was no pre-existing 'connection'. People with business opportunities with mutual value continue to take the time to use the telephone even though email would be a viable alternative. I'm unfortunately coming to the conclusion that the IETF isn't likely to be the source of mitigation or solution of the UBE problem. Too many factions to achieve enough concensus. Likely to be a repeat of BIG UGLY NAT with vendors responding with alternatives while the IETF finds fault with every possiblity because it isn't perfect. The group can't even agree that 'consent' should be every recipient's fundamental right ... of course some of the dialog festered on about the ability to implement 'consent'. A group of engineers should recognize that design principles are often compromised to achieve viable implementations. That doesn't invalidate the principle. If it was easy to achieve, it wouldn't rank as a principle. Dave Morris
