nanog mailing list archives
Re: EFF whitepaper
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk () cybernothing org>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:02:17 -0800
On 11/16/04, Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa () sunlightdata com> wrote:
I doubt that the participants in this discussion who are getting so huffy about the EFF position are ready to tolerate a situation where unknown third parties can arbitrarily block any email they send or receive, without informing them, regardless of content. Think about how that maps to the present situation.
I can certainly understand how end users or senders would feel that way, and many ISP's need to start doing a much better job of communicating their policies to their customers -- that's certainly not restricted to e-mail. However, using the EFF's hard-won and extremely critical influence to restrict an ISP's ability to manage their own systems doesn't seem like a good long-term solution to that problem. -- J.D. Falk okay, what's next? <jdfalk () cybernothing org>
Current thread:
- Re: EFF whitepaper, (continued)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Patrick W Gilmore (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Steven Champeon (Nov 15)
- Staying on topic (was Re: EFF whitepaper) Steve Gibbard (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Rich Kulawiec (Nov 16)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Paul G (Nov 16)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 16)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Richard Welty (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper J.D. Falk (Nov 17)