Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:26:26 +0700
- Priority: Normal
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:53:23 +0100 (MET), Paul Wouters wrote:
>And do you think its successor will handle in as good faith as the
>RIR's now?
>> An MUA which fails to deliver messages is not operational in any
>> reasonable sense of the word
>>And shooting them off the net is not the solution cowboy :)
Please refer to <http://www.camblab.com/misc/univ_std.txt> where
the full plan is spelled out (still in draft form, comments welcome).
This plan is based on motivating good behavior by the threat of
loss of something valued. This is the only thing that works, as
every parent knows. (Sometimes it is a material thing, sometimes
a parent's affection.) This plan will work because it is based
on science.
If you have a better solution to the spam problem based on validated
results of behavioral research, I would sincerely like to hear it.
There is no basis for litigation for the withdrawal of a resource
which is abused to the detriment of the public. The IP address
registrants don't own their addresses.
Jeffrey Race
