Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> wrote:
Nevertheless, we should tread carefully on removing on whatever
anonimity is currently being granted by SMTP.
I agree.
As I understand the RMX-style proposals, they do not remove any
anonymity. They add accountability, but only under the mutual consent
of the message originator and recipient. If the sender does not wish
to be accountable, they can choose to not send messages to the
recipient. People who wish to remain anonymous can use throw-away
accounts, paid for in cash.
The problem isn't hard to solve, and the solution very often has
nothing to do with SMTP.
As was pointed out earlier, the "human rights activist" isn't
randomly spamming people. Instead, (s)he's sending targeted messages
to people who want to receive them. Mutual consent exists, so any
anonymity, privace, and accountability issues become whatever the two
parties agree to.
If the human rights worker *does* resort to randomly spamming people
with their messages, then it's my perogative as a recipient MTA to
ignore their message. But in no way does this non-consent to spam
make me responsible for people dying. I have no polite words for
arguments which would make me responsible for any deaths as a result
of me choosing to not accept spam. Those arguments are not just
counter-productive, they're actively hostile to free speech and
freedom of choice.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg