Michael Thomas <mat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: Michael Thomas <mat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
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;
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.
Agreed.
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.
Nor is any needed. There are a bunch of services doing 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.
Principles are there as much to prevent dis-implementation of
good things as to suggest possibilities for implementation of new
things.
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".
It directs our attention to the issue of consent by both parties,
which is missing from "do unto others...".
Furthermore, we're talking about engineering here. You engineer
systems, not people. We're not trying to "engineer" better people
who won't send spam -- we're trying to engineer a communication
system which helps them communicate when and if they want to do so.
That and if it's really just a platitude that leads
to a single solution,
It doesn't look like one to me...
that it should be reworded to be more obvious and less
platitudinal.
To repeat myself, I'm still open to suggestions for re-wording.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>