At 11:01 AM -0400 2003/08/26, Alan DeKok wrote:
So we need a BCP saying why their practices are unhelpful.
We can make that a part of the overall BCP update.
Or, we need a BCP from AOL, saying why their practices are helpful.
You're not going to get that. Management thinks of this as a
competitive advantage, I'm sure.
Or, we need to design a better consent protocol which doesn't have
these problems, so AOL can implement it.
Doesn't matter. AOL doesn't give a damn about standards. They
care about the latest dain-bramaged idea that some marketing VP (who
can't figure out how to wipe his own butt) can come up with.
While I understand that current network practices make it difficult
to implement a consent system, we should NOT give up trying to design
or implement such a system because of those difficulties. We are here
to design a consent system precisely BECAUSE of difficulties in
current practices.
We can design whatever we want. But don't expect anyone at AOL
to actually implement anything we come up with -- unless it's a
stupid idea that we rejected.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad(_dot_)knowles(_at_)skynet(_dot_)be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg