RE: Outgoing SMTP Servers

[Brian Johnson <bjohnson () drtel com>]

Owen,

When you stretch an analogy this thin, it always falls apart. I was referring to the poison/pollution not the 
water/air. A drought/vacuum* would not be possible, but would you want the poisoned water/air?

This analogy is bad enough without the nits picked out. I actually mixed two posts to create a stream analogy out of an 
air analogy.

I will not go any further and all further follows on to this analogy should be ignored. :)

 - Brian J.

* a lack of air (for a reasonable deffinition of air) would be a vacuum... right?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen () delong com]
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:11 PM
> To: Brian Johnson
> Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
>
> > > > Nor is the data transiting these networks a commons. The air over my
> > > > land is a commons. I don't control it. If I pollute it or if I don't,
> > > > it promptly travels over someone else's land.
> > >
> > > If you choose to pollute the air heavily, the value of the air drops for
> > > everybody.
> > > If you choose to pollute the Net heavily, the value of the Net drops for
> > > everybody.
> >
> > STRIKE 3! Oops got ahead of myself.
> >
> > I'm attempting to prevent the pollution but I may capture a little good water
> (almost nothing) along the way. To say that this is a way of "bad acting" and
> causes a loss of value to the Internet as a whole is pure folly.
> >
>
> No, it really isn't. Because the good water that you are catching is actually
> causing
> a drought downstream.
>
> Owen