nanog mailing list archives
Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
From: "Matthew James Gering" <mgering () ricochet net>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 01:51:38 -0700
The problem with spam is not the inability of persons and companies to create policies, but to enforce those policies due to to the inability to identify spam, and measures taken to prevent its identification. We do not need government to create policies for us, and the goverment has no additional ability to enforce policy except through the use of force (police, courts, guns). Unauthorized use of mail relays is already illegal -- no explicit law is necessary to make it so. Forgery of headers to falsely implicate an innocent party is already illegal -- no explicit law is necessary to make it so. I oppose any explicit goverment regulation of the Internet, good intentions or not. The governments hold no particular control over the Internet itself (except US, which cannot practically excercise it) -- geographic borders are too easily circumvented. Regulation based on the geographic location of information and equipment creates an influence that opposes efficiency in Internet traffic, routing, caching, etc. The top-level power in the Internet derives from the delegation TLD's, IP space, and the policies and peering contracts of the default-free tier 1 providers. This is global and unescapable. Where it involves purely technical issues to insure the continued viability and operation of the Internet, this is where regulation should derive from. It must be technical, unbiased and non-judgemental. Putting aside where and who regulates, the only thing that is necessary to solve them problem is as follows: * reinforcement of the illegality of unauthorized use mail relays * reinforcement of the illegality of header forgery to implicate an innocent party. And in the effort to allow the identification of spam, a required SMTP header: precedence: [ high | normal | low | bulk | uce ] This will allow policies to be enforced, and maintain the freedom of creating that policy. Matt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs, (continued)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs J.D. Falk (May 26)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs J.D. Falk (May 26)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Tony Torzillo (May 27)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Kent W. England (May 28)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs J.D. Falk (May 28)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Sean M. Doran (May 29)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs John M. Brown (May 24)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Owen DeLong (May 27)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Dory Ethan Leifer (May 28)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Owen DeLong (May 27)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Dave O'Shea (May 24)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Matthew James Gering (May 26)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs J.D. Falk (May 26)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Russell Nelson (May 26)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Curt Howland (May 27)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Vadim Antonov (May 29)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs Kent W. England (May 29)
- Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs John McCann (May 30)