On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
I dare say. I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to work for another company and writes email from george@example.com that injures my reputation. Not a good plan at all.
1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been avoided.
Believe it or not, some people have email addresses that are not intrinsically "ISP" addresses.
2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying you is the real owner of the address, for example?
Again, it might all be within one ISP--and is still irrelevant.
IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
Governments requiring people to do things that are not good ideas often have unexpected (even if obvious) consequences. My reaction, if I were in a position to do so, would be to stop providing email addresses.
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Why is that relevant? -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml