J C Lawrence <claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu> wrote:
Lack of objection does not mean consent, and lack of consent does not
mean lack of objection.
Exactly. A proposal like RMX allows consent (and objections) to be
applied before the fact, not after it.
Dictating on an Internet-wide scale that only centralised systems
can send mail is Wrong.
I don't see how that applies to RMX. See below...
Assume RMX becomes popular and widely deployed. Will you accept mail
from a node which doesn't have an RMX record or which is outside of the
RMX record stated for that domain?
That's my private choice, and I don't see why it's any of your
business.
No, I don't want to impose a __centralised__mandated__model__ on mail
traffic control. Please ensure you read the underlined words, then
compare the external behaviour of RMX to the simple public-key/crypto
model I mentioned a few messages ago.
RMX is even better than your toy model. It doesn't require key
distribution. If the domain owner establishes consent for all IP's in
a range (ANY range), then he can add wild-card DNS records, to reply
'yes' to RMX consent queries. Heck, he can add wildcard RMX records
for the entire Internet, if he so desires. <plink> No centralized
control, and your objection disappears.
But RMX allows domain administrators to ALSO make less wide-ranging
statements of consent. Those statements cannot currently be made at
all.
In a sense I'm taking the free speech argument, one which is also often
used by spammers. Are all free speech arguments necessarily bad because
spammers also use them?
No, your arguments about free speech fall flat when they involve
limiting my speech, so that you can have less limited speech.
Should the holder of the DNS keys be a dictator over all the mail sent
from his domain? You say, "Yes!" I say, "Hell no!"
I say "He should be permitted to do that, if he so chooses."
You say "My choice is to forbid him from making that choice."
Phrased that way, your position becomes less than friendly, and less
than open. So I'm skeptical about your claims of "free speech."
While we each run our own little private fiefdoms in regard to our
mail systems, the exchange of mail in general across the 'net
requires a basis in common consensus.
That sounds reasonable.
If that consensus is defined in terms of RMX deployment, then that
is a cost and requirement that neither you or I have choice over.
That doesn't sound reasonable.
In essence it is a dictate that I, and you, and every other domain
on the 'net MUST run centralised control over the behaviour of all
nodes in our domains.
I still have no clue where you get this "dictate" idea from.
What I'm campaigning against is a progression that takes your
individual choice, along with others, and makes it a net-wide
dictate.
Who said anything about dictating the behaviour for the net? I
didn't. I have said REPEATEDLY that I want everyone to choose the
behaviour that makes them happy. What would make me happy is if
people filtered spam in certain ways, but I categorically refuse to
dictate that they do so.
I think that's the crux of the miscommunication here. I say "I want
choice for me", and you hear "Everyone else must follow Alan's
choice."
I also don't want to be in the position of going to every other
domain out there and telling them, "You must elect your DNSmaster as
your mail dictator."
If that's a requirement you have for consenting to exchange email
with people, I don't see why you should be forbidden from making
unreasonable requests of people. If they choose to abide by those
requests, that's a consentual relationship between two adults, and
it's not really my problem.
So the truth comes out: You don't want two people to consent to
engage in mutual behaviour that you find reprehensible, even if that
behaviour doesn't affect other people.
That's an attempt at massive censorship, and make me understand your
comments about "dictates". "Methinks you doth protest too much."
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg