Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF
Paul, none of the suggestions I have seen so far (in more than five years) offer something which 1. is an effective solution, 2. is technologically possible, and 3. places the burden of blame on the perpetrator. If you can propose a solution which does not imply: ...imaginary technology to intuit a commercial message from its content (can anyone say "content based routing"? ;) ...making the management of the affected resources more rigorous than current practice ...punishing the ISP for the actions of its customers ...complex or impossible deployment issues ...added administrative cost I and many others would LOVE to hear about it. I am the first to agree with Shakespere on the value of certain members of the legal profession. This time, however, I do not see any recourse. Do you? </rr> On 16 Oct 95 at 9:40, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Eek. Do you _really_ want to get a bunch of shyster lawyers involved? I would think that there must be any number of more platable courses of action than this...
My $.02.
-- The Internet Company - info@internet.com We Bring Only Value to the Global Internet
I'm not so sure that is a technology problem to be solved at all. I'm more concerned, frankly, with the junk mail that ends up in my snail-mail box than an occasional spam, no matter how annoying it is. I'm convinced that responsible actions on the part of the ISP can remedy this type of behavior, even though it is after-the-fact and reactive in nature. As someone already mentioned, we need to stop thinking of the Internet in US-centric fashions. The Internet spans continents and has no regard for national boundaries or knee-jerk legislation. Sorry; I just don't agree. - paul
Paul, none of the suggestions I have seen so far (in more than five years) offer something which 1. is an effective solution, 2. is technologically possible, and 3. places the burden of blame on the perpetrator.
If you can propose a solution which does not imply:
...imaginary technology to intuit a commercial message from its content (can anyone say "content based routing"? ;)
...making the management of the affected resources more rigorous than current practice
...punishing the ISP for the actions of its customers
...complex or impossible deployment issues
...added administrative cost
I and many others would LOVE to hear about it.
I am the first to agree with Shakespere on the value of certain members of the legal profession.
This time, however, I do not see any recourse. Do you?
On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Paul Ferguson wrote:
As someone already mentioned, we need to stop thinking of the Internet in US-centric fashions. The Internet spans continents and has no regard for national boundaries or knee-jerk legislation.
When one country passes legislation to deal with a situation, other countries will often study that legislation as the basis for their own new law. Somebody has to take the first step. Anyway, the real solution is to make people aware that spamming is "not nice" and a waste of time. Anything that generates some publicity for the cause is good including national legislation. Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
When one country passes legislation to deal with a situation, other countries will often study that legislation as the basis for their own new law. Somebody has to take the first step.
Anyway, the real solution is to make people aware that spamming is "not nice" and a waste of time. Anything that generates some publicity for the cause is good including national legislation.
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
As an aside, an undesired side-effect may be more restriciveness, which is a Bad Thing, IMO. - paul
If you can propose a solution which does not imply:
...imaginary technology to intuit a commercial message from its content (can anyone say "content based routing"? ;)
...making the management of the affected resources more rigorous than current practice
...punishing the ISP for the actions of its customers
...complex or impossible deployment issues
...added administrative cost
I and many others would LOVE to hear about it.
I am the first to agree with Shakespere on the value of certain members of the legal profession.
This time, however, I do not see any recourse. Do you?
Lawyers and Law imply the last four of your list of five. Do you really wish to have the US legal system ham-string the growth of the Internet? Has -anyone- looked at RFC 1746 recently? If ISP's do not review this RFC and build reasonable polices as a result, then thier peers should put them out of buisness as a matter of self preservation. There is zero need to try and have the law do things to people who will not help themselves. If you get undesireable content, block routes to the offending party and take your business elsewhere. -- --bill
participants (4)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Michael Dillon -
Paul Ferguson -
Robert Raisch, The Internet Company