At 9:17 AM +0100 4/23/03, Jon Kyme wrote:
Ah yes, but MKD did provide that permission might only be available
periodically. A sender who abuses the system (and subsequently has their
permission revoked) only gets a single shot (until the next time).
Before you point it out - I know, this is equivalent to a per sender
blacklist / whitelist (with some room for consent tokens I'd guess).
Such schemes have been proposed and discussed in much detail already.
I think that the idea of some "Dead time" in which substantially identical
permission requests (consent consultations, whatever) would not be
responded to - would go some way to counter your objections.
You're right, I was going to point that out. But that wasn't my
objection. My objection is that giving them one shot means that you
know who "they" is, which means that you not only have a consistent
model of identity, you have some way of ensuring that people only
ever have one identity. Even if possible, that's not desirable.
(E.g. role identities.)
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg