John Leslie writes:
Michael Thomas <mat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Paul Vixie <vixie(_at_)vix(_dot_)com> wrote:
"all communications must be by mutual consent"
Case 1: consent is presumed until content is observed;
others check caller-ID, and let an answering machine take any calls
they don't recognize;
Case 2: non-consent is presumed for unauthenticated senders;
Neither of these furthers the discourse since
nothing prevents you from making white/black lists
today.
still others hire a sectretary to screen their calls...
Case 3: an external agent screens everything;
This is the only case that is "new" in the sense
that there isn't any standardized way to do this
now.
Well, I don't understand because it sure seems to
me that the principle requires omniscience in
isolation...
No more so than the three cases listed above
(or others not listed).
Like what? If the principle only leads to exactly
one new thing you can develop toward, then there
is no reason to be oblique.
I'm still open (for a few hours) to suggestions for re-wording;
but I'm not going to accept any re-wording that changes a principle
into an implementation plan.
I'm not suggesting an implementation plan. I'm
asking why this principle makes any more sense
than "do unto others as you would have them do
unto you". That and if it's really just a
platitude that leads to a single solution, that it
should be reworded to be more obvious and less
platitudinal.
Mike