On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:27:46 -0500, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
This is exactly right -- we have people arguing from two different
paradigms, both fundamentally orthogonal to the expertise of the IETF.
What this suggests to me is that until the larger society -- i.e. the
courts and international institutions -- reach a determination of the
"right" paradigm for dealing with spam, the IETF is going to spin its
wheels on these issues. If someone could tell us definitively "this is
a question of property rights" or "this is a question of human rights"
or whatever, the IETF as a community would be well qualified to do the
engineering implied by that conclusion. Until then, it's probably an
unresolvable issue for a community as open and democratic as the IETF.
The larger society HAS ALREADY REACHED A DETERMINATION because the
larger society has dealt with this kind of problem, successfully, since
the dawn of civilization. That's why it is called civilization. The
principle, simply stated, is "Actions must have consequences". When
they don't, any sociologist will tell you that you will get exactly
the results you see on the internet.
This is all spelled out in <http://www.camblab.com/misc/univ_std.txt>
which is based on <http://www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf>.
The IETF and other standards bodies can almost completely STOP spam,
viruses, trojans, and other security threats, if they will
develop tools (for example traceability) and norms (for example
null-routing polluting sources) to impose consequences on actions.
Once you do it (and there are tricks to make it work, easily, when
you decide to do it) then the problems go away in HOURS (not after
years of hot air such as we see on certain discussion groups).
Now antisocial behavior produces only good for the perps, not the
This is just common sense which every parent knows.
Until the standards bodies start this process in motion, everything
else is just useless whining.
OK, I feel better now.