On 13 Apr 2003 01:35:56 UTC waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org wrote:
| I don't ask governments for extra assistance
Given the state of the internet, I do ask for some specific assistance.
The specifics are the things that I cannot provide for myself, namely
(a) the right to seek damages against providers who knowingly allow
insecure or compromised machines that have been abused to remain
online, and
(b) that it be made an offence to publish false or misleading routing
information of any nature (perhaps that was in a recent proposal,
but if so, it's extremely poorly worded!)
(c) governments should reach treaties with other governments to ensure
that these provisions extend to as many nations as possible, and
take precedence over any "Data Protection" laws, where such exist.
| All I ask for is...
{snip}
| b) that ISP's and blocklist maintainers be held harmless for
| good-faith efforts to block/reduce unwanted email. This includes
| deliberate boycotts of non-spamming address space of bandwidth
| providers who host spammers in other parts of their address space.
What you seek I support in its entirety. I question only the wisdom of
saying anything to legislators which appears to endorse anything that is
described as "deliberate boycotts of" anything. The words are emotive;
you probably won't get the reaction you need by phrasing it that way.
Were you to have said:
b) that ISP's and network operators be held harmless for
good-faith efforts intended to block/reduce unwanted email.
This includes the sharing of full details of their policies
and of any resulting restrictions actually imposed ...
then, remembering that a blocklist is no more than a re-statement of
its owner's own acceptance policies, there would be less risk of any
misunderstanding.
--
Richard Cox
Mandarin Technology
(Currently sorting out the mess caused by the hijacking of eight /16s!)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg