[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sat May 18 22:03:00 CEST 2019
In message <CALZ3u+Z4CVN0zj41kD69VEscYu=GVN=d-y=1ZjmuAJp0V8KJnw at mail.gmail.com> =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera at gmail.com> wrote: >And yes, Kazakhstanian court also thinks IP addresses are property. Do you >consider yourself in a good company now? I am not in a position to argue with the opinions of either Kazakhstan coyrts or U.S. courts. >IP addresses are a public shared resource. They are a *policy*, not a >property. OK. If you say so. All I can say is that I realized, some years ago now, how little it matters what we call things. For years I have tried to persuade all of my friends and family to call my Honda automobile a Ferrari. And some have obliged me. I have noticed however that despite this, the car's general attributes and its performance characteristics have not changed one wit. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]