<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] (Last chance to flame) Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment)

  • To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" < >
  • From: Nick Hilliard < >
  • Date: 13 Feb 2003 16:23:00 +0000
  • Cc: "anti-spam-wg@localhost" < >

> Comments or objections to the effect "This is going to be burdensome on
> $spam_enabler" are superfluous because that is the precise intention of
> the proposed Practice: to move the burden from victims to polluters and 
> their enablers.

Jeffrey, your tenets are broken, your thesis unworkable, and as a result
your document is basically worthless, even if we all recognise that full
traceability and "good behaviour" are desirable goals.  If you're going
to lump RIR's and LIR's into the category of spam "enablers", you should
probably also include computer manufacturers, banks, car manufacturers,
coffee companies and all other businesses whose existence allows
spammers to continue to operate.

Reading between the lines, you seem to put RIR's at the top of some
grand pecking order, ready to wield the sword of Damocles whenever the
level below fails to conform.  However, none of the RIR's has the
mandate, the authority or the desire to act as internet police.  Do you
not understand this?

The document contains a bunch of other hilariously unworkable
suggestions, many of which have been discussed on this list already; 
I'm not going to go into now because you'll just go "la, la, la, I can't
hear you" (see quoted text above).  Many of them seem to revolve around
your rhetorical categorisation of anyone being involved in the internet
business as a "spam enabler".  Others include suggestions on summary
service withdrawal, the nature of which would be deemed by most legal
systems to be way out.

And as has been mentioned before, this discussion is more apposite to
lir-wg.

Nick






  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>