Re: [9fans] spam rejection after reception does have limits

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:50:09PM +0200, boyd, rounin wrote:
>
> now is all ISPs enforced the rule that the MGRS coords of the
> ISP or the sender were added as the standard sig at least
> you could call in a JDAM on them, but this is very open to
> blue-on-blue man-in-the-middle attacks.
> --
> MGRS 31U DQ 52579 12613

ICBMs? :-)  :-)

There's a definite need for delegation of authority with associated
acceptance of responsibility in the sender-exchanger relationship.

ISPs have rules about use, but enforcement by severance is inadequate.
I maintain that the solution has to involve punishment, probably
to the point where the few that are caught will have to pay on
behalf of those who get away.

Our recent legislation (in South Africa) attempted to address the
problem, but lacked the understanding (oops, I'm doing a Choate
here) to arrive at a sensible product (the ECT Act is online
somewhere, but it's frightfully irritating in its ability to get
close to bone without quite ever making it, mail me and I'll look
for it).

What I found immensely annoying is that no one was able to provide
sensible alternatives to even the most inappropriate sections of
the Act.  And it's not through lack of interest, it just seemed
impossible to formulate in legislative terms what was technologically
obvious.  And I don't exclude myself from the list of attempts.
There is a serious communication gap between technologists and
users and it looks insurmountable.  Let's not ignore that in our
quest.

++L