On 10/18/11 10:30 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Doug, At 21:59 18-10-2011, Douglas Otis wrote:
> You are confusing consumerism with how an oligarchy works, right?
> Currently, the Internet represents an open market where receivers
> should be allowed to ask who is piping sewage into their home.
It's more like an open space where cacophony fills the void.
Are you saying that it is not in the IETF's interest to establish
methods that allow receivers a means to identify those generating noise
from those making music?
> SPF doesn't care who should be held accountable, nor does DKIM care
> whether a message is being abusively replayed and by whom or
> whether it has been modified to offer deceptive
I gather that the people on this mailing list have enough clue to
read the specifications and assess the technology.
The current technology is heavily biased. It gives an advantage to
those considered "too big to block" where current identification methods
do not allow the defense of one's reputation. Such a situation keeps
everyone stuck with the noise or turning to a better system. :^(
> When a user is able to limit those with which they exchange
> messages (a buddy list), there isn't any spam problem. Even when
> bad actors return under a different name, they still don't make the
I actually got some spam from people who I could consider as being on
the buddy list.
By most definitions, it is not spam when you wish to receive a buddy's
message. I guess you are saying that you are not happy with all of
their messages. There is no protocol that can determine what makes you
> A web of trust is not possible without actually authenticating the
> _accountable_ entity
On this, I am very happy we agree. I also assume you know what