> I'm saying that we can solve this problem without: > > 1. throwing the baby away with the bathwater > 2. giving up something of incalculable value: unfettered, untracked, > anonymous access to the system > 3. feeding an 'information mountain' that can be selectively drawn from > by an authority who has decided he/she doesn't like you because you're > interfering with his/her authority. > > >> Remember how this thread got started? Someone thought I (or my >> server) was sending out these dangerous emails? > > Yes, the spam problem, enlarged to include dangerous emails; but > essentially a problem involving someone out there sending something to > your inbox that you don't want there. > > The question is "how do we stop that from happening"?
I see your two desires - unfettered, untracked, anonymous access - and the ability to stop folks who are abusing the system - as mutually exclusive. If I can access 'the system' anonymously, then I can send out spam and you can't find (thus, stop) me. > First of all, regardless of what happens next, we need a rule that says > we have a right to not be subjected to unwanted advertising, > solicitations and dangerous mail. Without that, there is no basis to > proceed. Kinda like the advertisements at the front of DVDs. And billboards on the highways. And full page ads in the newspaper. And banner ads on Web sites. I don't want any of that...... Oh, wait. > I will attempt to get past this by saying that, for the most part, rules > are in place regarding the same situation as it applies to cell phones > and faxes, which are just different devices that handle digital > transmissions. Thus, my first proposition would be to institute the same > mechanics for Internet based digital transmissions (the no-spam list). I > would hold the relative success with cell phones and faxes is an example > of an approach that more or less works - at least knocking down the > volume considerably by getting honest business people who are just > taking advantage of something that's free and readily available to them. But the difference is that the sender has to pay for cell phone and fax spam. Maybe not a lot, but there is still a definitive cost involved. Spam costs zilch, particularly if you're relying on pwned Windows machines. > That leaves us with a smaller group to deal with: those who will break > the rules for their purposes, be they promotional/financial or > destructive. > > At this point, we turn to the ISP's, the Internet license holders who > are receiving incoming traffic at the local level to respect the shared > no-spam list within a certain threshold, with their license at risk. I thought we needed anonymous access... so how is the ISP going to find me if I'm anonymous? I suspect I'm missing something in your proposal. I still think a few frequent flyer miles and a box of shells would be the least expensive and most effective method. /sigh/ Whil _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
