On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:27:34PM +0000, Adam Back wrote:
Anonymous users and spammers are not the same group.
The are not sufficiently distinguishable in a technical way.
Most spam message I receive has wrong/unusable sender addresses.
So I subsume them as anonymous mail.
A debate about the rights and wrongs of being allowed to send
anonymous mail is a debate and technology for another group.
Another group? I thought this group ought to deal with spam...
How do you know "Adam Back" is not a pseudonym?
I don't know it. But that's not an argument, that's the problem
itself.
How do you know that "Hadmut Danisch" is not a pseudonym?
Quite easy: Do a whois query on danisch.de. Once my relay is
covered with a RMX or a signature, you know (at least with a certain
level of reliability) that the mail from hadmut(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de has
anything to do with that guy mentioned in the whois entry.
See the difference?
You have no way to know,
Exactly. That's the main problem. Fighting spam involves changing
that fact.
You are proposing a change to defacto rights against users
interests.
"user interests" are not just "sender interests".
They are also "recipients interests". And these interests do
conflict here.
It's a common failure to limit the "rights" or "interests" to
the sender only and to force the whole world to apply the
US flavour of constitution.
Since the recipient has to pay the costs of spam, it's rights
weigh more then the sender's rights.
I completely disagree with your comments about the right to retain
privacy, and right to avoid receiving anonmous communications -- you
have no current right in that regard for email, and introducing one
takes a way more freedoms than it introduces.
Pure nonsense.
First: I am the owner of my mail relay. So it is my perfect right
to decide what goes through it.
Second: The german constitution states this right. As a german
citizen, I pretty much do have this right.
The courts found this right to not be molested with unsolicited
and anonymous e-mail and facsimiles. Just today a german computer
magazine reported that a german court found that this right also
applies to SMS (messages sent to and from cell phones).
See http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-05.03.03-001/
(if you understand german).
It's a common failure to believe that the american laws apply
to all the world and that everybody needs to follow the american
way to handle things.
I happen to think the way email privacy and anonymity works at present
is good, and if anything needs improving rather than removing. I
think your ideas to reduce privacy are very badly damaging to email
freedoms.
There is only one thing that currently damages email freedom,
or at least my email freedom. It's a beast called spam.
You can't just make pronouncements and presume your view is the only
correct one. Consider there are people who disagree; for them you are
proposing to remove freedoms, functionality and reliability. You say
"good - that slows spam" or "good - I don't want to recieve anonymous
mails". But you _are_ proposing to damange existing functionality and
freedoms.
I never said anything about what "slows spam". You're confusing me
with someone else.
Furthermore, I always stated that I don't want to restrict any
sender, I want to leave it in the receivers choice whether to take
it or not. I never tried to make anonymous mail impossible. I just
want to give the receiver a choice to take it or not.
So I don't take anybody's freedom, I try to give new freedom,
the freedom to decide from whom to accept e-mail. That's a new
quality.
Hadmut
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg