Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yakov Shafranovich" <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
-- enhanced tracing mechanisms
This brings to mind privacy and anonimity. Should they be on the list as
well? How do we balance the tracing requirement with the need for
privacy and anonimity?
We don't balance it. We design with CONTROL in mind - no loopholes.
Anonimity is an implementation issue, i.e, I can give you "alias" address
to spam but you will have a "user account" to do so.
Alias Access and Anonymous access are TWO different ideas. I don't have a
problem with the first. The INDUSTRY has a problem with the latter. The
idea of "untracable" anonymous access is why we are here in the first place.
I believe what you are refering to is access control over network nodes
that introduce email into the MTS. While we might need access control
over network nodes themselves, is there a reason to go further and
authenticate individual senders? All we really care about is whether a
specific network node is rogue or responsible, what they do with their
users is none of our business. This is where privacy and anonimity might
play a role - how far do you go?
Yakov
P.S. I still believe that many of today's spam issues can be solved if
the ISPs cooperated better. This is a human issue and will remain. The
question is how to make sure that a rogue MTS node is detected, if the
human cooperation fails.
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my
tongue." (MIT's 404 Message)
-------