From: Adam Back <adam(_at_)cypherspace(_dot_)org>
...
We know from long experience that laws, and after the fact enforcement
of AUPs don't solve the problem. That is the status quo.
No, the status quo involves lots of spam, but not from ISPs that have
strongly anti-spam AUPs and bother to really enforce them. (A strong
anti-spam AUP is not one that says "send as much spam as you want for
a couple business days and then buy a new throw-away account." One
that says "send spam and your financial knee-caps will be destroyed
by our lawyers" is strongly anti-spam.)
Demonstrations of how laws can work are the very successful recent
U.S. state laws against telemarking.
...
So how will anyonymous users who want anonymity for privacy send mail
in this world.
All of the authentication anti-spam efforts are based on the mistaken
notion that ISPs cannot know their own customers and exact a pound or
two of flesh for bad behavior.
That notion is incredibly silly if you've paid the least attention to
history. For example, Ma Bell knew a lot less about its pay phone
customers, but nevertheless managed to keep "phone phreaking" under
better control than AT&T, MCI/UUnet, and Sprint have controlled their
own spammers.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg