The responses I got (only 2) remind me of the concept that free speech is
only allowed as long as you don't abuse it. For this list I must point
translate this phrase to point out that restricting free speech to what is
allowed ain't no free speech. It's heartening to see the reaction in Hong
Kong to the attempts to make sure they don't get too much freedom.
I don't really think I need to respond to the suggestions that we should
limit email to approved messages via approved channels containing approved
content but might as well make a futile attempt. But I realize this is a
religious war between those who know good from bad as absolutes and those
who don't see them as invariants.
Static IP addresses are bug. But putting that aside, Requiring me to only
send mail through approved channels is like requiring that I ask permission
to use free speech and file with all the authorities so I can be punished
for saying the wrong things. Telling me what path I'm allowed to use is not
just restrictive, it's not the Internet! But if you believe they can't be
forged, you're setting yourself up for a disaster.
To respond to another letter I don't need, I don't want an ISP and I must
not be required to have an ISP any more than I must not be required to send
my phone calls over the legacy PSTN for no purpose other than creating a
billable entity out of nothing - I just want to have my packets find a path.
If I'm driving down the road I'll use whatever access point is available. I
can't use an ISP that requires my packets follow a physical path any more
than I can be assured my water molecules will not go the wrong way through
the ocean.
As to no HTML -- that only applies to lists of people who eschew expressive
typography. But it will help reduce spam as will other measures that reduce
the expressive power of language
This is reminiscent of the efforts to prove programs correct by so reducing
the expressive power of the programming languages as to render the program
inscrutable to humans but at least you could use a mechanical procedure to
demonstrate the equivalence between two inscrutable strings of characters.
We can kill email and its expressive power in order to save it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feenberg [mailto:feenberg(_at_)nber(_dot_)org]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 07:25
To: asrg(_at_)bobf(_dot_)frankston(_dot_)com; asgf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out?
Use your ISPs mail server and get over it.
If users can't have the help of their ISP to deter spam, they will be
greatly disadvantaged in the fight against it.
The "consent model" model means you need the consent of the user to send
them mail. They need to be free to have help making the decision to accept
mail, from their ISP or others. Merely delegating responsibility to
another is not a loss of freedom, for them, or for you.
Since the IP address of the connecting host is the only non-forgable
identity information the receiving ISP has, they are not likely to accept
mail from dynamic addresses if they want to supress spam at all (other
than content examination).
It isn't overly restrictive to ask you to send your mail through a mail
server with a permanent IP address. To retain subscribers AOL needs to do
its users will seek out ISP that do better. That is the users protection
from AOL misbehavior. If AOL is prohibited from acting on the user's
behalf, few users have the wherewithall to handle this themselves.
There is no concept of freedom anywhere in the world (except for inside
spammers brains) that requires users to accept mail from you or anyone
else. You may send such mail as you like. Receipients choose, directly or
through agents, what to accept. You need to accept that and move on.
You also need to stop posting HTML to mailing lists.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 asrg(_at_)bobf(_dot_)frankston(_dot_)com wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
I found this in my SMTP log
The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic,
IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions,
I've only been skimming this list (5000 messages are a lot to catch up
on. But this action by AOL is like prohibiting free speech to save it.
Killing email by going back to the PTT model is effectively opting out
of the Internet. I say a little more about this at
http://www.frankston.com/?name=AolVsInternet.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg