Kurt Weber <kurt(_at_)servuhome(_dot_)net> writes:
Personally, I have nothing against the legitimacy of spam. I don't
like it, but I do believe that it should be legal. If they want
to outlaw telemarketing and junk mail, then they can outlaw spam.
Besides, because of the nature of the Internet, if you outlaw spam,
then the same person could send it from a locale where spamming
IS legal. It's impossible to eradicate spam through legislation.
It is also impossible to differentiate between so-called
spam and expressions of a personal political, social or
artistic nature. All of which should be protected in any
legitimate democracy. All to often our technical over-seers
are all to willing to sacrifice precious liberties and
freedoms in the interests of presumed network integrity.
What, pray tell, is the use of any infrastructure if it
cannot tolerate the full gamut of human communications?
Including the crass, craven and (SHUDDERS) the artistic?
Such a network is of no value at all. The harder and higher
the standards you IETF people militate towards the more
likely your precious work will be circumvented and bypassed
as inadequate. There were other computer networks that
rose and fell besides the Internet. I was there and I can
name a few of them and I suspect I will live to see the
rise of still others. Cautionary thoughts me thinks(?).
Alive and well and living somewhere in Toronto. Sort of.
Bob Allisat
bob(_at_)fcn(_dot_)net