jdow wrote:
From: "Ken A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's crazier than I thought you were. If you expect the average
user to go along with that you're not connected with reality very
well. Your idealism is getting in the way.
He's engaged in marc-eting ? sorry... but yeah. end this o.t. please...
Ken
This is his original email:
===8<---
I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance Forum
of the United Nations. Keeping in mind that free speech and freedom is
important, what would you change in the world to stop spam? I'm looking
for things that are actually possible and practical. Suggestions can be
anthing. My thoughts include things like requiring ISPs to provide
better firewalls for end users, requiring Microsoft to provide more hack
protection even for pirated versions of windows, ways to keep people
from impersonating other users, evolving the SMTP protocol ....
Looking for more ideas. Paper is due tomorrow.
===8<---
If this is real and not make believe for a class somewhere in school
then Marc is a VERY dangerous person with an agenda. That agenda seems
to be to require IMAP. The question becomes "why?"
The answer is easy, remember where IMAP stores your email. This makes
it VERY easy for the government to dig into your private life without
invading your home where you generally have some legal protections.
He has been ordered to justify using IMAP instead of SMTP using SPAM
as an excuse. How else do you explain his irrationality?
I don't think it's anything that dark.. See previous threads started by
Marc Perkel on this list. He appears to be gaining an education -
perhaps accidentally with his overzealous approach. See subjects: "The
Future of Email is SQL", "The best way to use Spamassassin is to not use
Spamassassin". The one thing in common is that the threads go on way too
long, since they elicit some strong responses.
Paper is due tomorrow, HA!
Ken A
Pacific.Net
This makes him an incredibly dangerous person. It is also a very
telling argument against transferring management of the Internet to
the UN. It's scary enough having the US government involved. At least
the US government is mandating remarkably little with its mostly hands
off approach towards those managing the Internet. If people like Marc
end up in control the Internet quickly becomes useless and actively
dangerous to use. Sadly the UN is further down that dangerous road
than the US, today. That is, of course, subject to change.
What the Internet needs is as little hands on management as possible
with as many alternatives as possible. Let the people on the Internet
evolve the protections, such as SpamAssassin. If other people are
annoyed by spam then they should pressure for the adoption of these
filtering practices or adopt them for themselves. Dictating what
protocols can be used and selecting one that exposes as much private
data as possible to rather direct government scrutiny is NOT the way
the Internet should evolve.
{^_^}
