Then I think the present treatment should be satisfactory that:
"Proposals MUST address issues of accountability and anonymity of MTS users,
specifically message senders."
So not to specifically support anonymity but to '...address issues of...'. To
be clear, this means to explicitly state how or whether the approach 'treats'
these issues.
On Wednesday, October 29, 2003 12:46 AM, Yakov Shafranovich
[SMTP:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com] wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If an ISP allows some anonymous usage with lets say a rate limiter or
free email, how long will it take until spammers start
abusing that and
ISPs will begin to shut down such services?
The ISP has to protect their reputation, holding the user accountable is
one
way to do that. Another would be to implement a rate limiting scheme at the
end user's machine.
End user anonymity is not an intrinsic problem, it is a problem for certain
proposed solutions. I dont believe that requirements should be fitted to
solutions.
I think that the requirements should state that proposal authors should
address anonimity and privacy issues, not that they MUST support anonimity.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg