Subject: Re: [Asrg] New take on emerging idea. (Query/C-R system?)

From: Jamie Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:52:04 -0500

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:

> 
> On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 07:13  PM, J C Lawrence wrote:
> 
> >>> What government?
> >
> >> The United States Government.
> >
> > Most of the world is not American.
> 
> And how do you implement this for Cuba? Syria? Libya? Whoever else 
> America is not on speaking terms this week? What happens when 
> (inevitably) America chooses to use access to this database as a lever 
> to force it's access and content policies on the world?
> 
> How do you convince the world it won't try that? Not all e-mail users 
> like America, or trust America. that includes many americans.

As an (US) American, I'd hope that most of the world doesn't trust the
US Government, just as I don't trust business partners unless I have a 
contract. I don't see why anyone should "trust" anyone, unless that trust 
is enumerated or at least based on a sane and appropriate handshake 
agreement based on prior dealings.

I want to see simple, agreeable steps. Like authenticated headers. Yes,
it is CPU time. I think those who care can suck it up. Those who can't,
or won't, are second class. Done deal, evolution in action, mail still
goes through. Anonymous remailers are respected and known for what they
are, spam houses are taken to task by other methods. 

In any case, using US law as a tool for spam prevention is dumb. I don't
think law is a tool for spam prevention even in the US, but that's a
different discussion, which is debated by people far more eloquent and
time endowed than I am.

-j

-- 
Jamie Lawrence                                        [email-masked]
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:32:15 -0700

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:52:04 -0500 
Jamie Lawrence <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I want to see simple, agreeable steps. Like authenticated
> headers. Yes, it is CPU time. 

Does the forward chained Received: headers proposal satisfy this?

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg