Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal

"Claudio Telmon" <claudio@telmon.org> Thu, 25 June 2009 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <64414253@ngi.it>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D4C3A6A63 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.325
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.394, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ZnT8Iq9wK4t for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slim-2a.inet.it (slim-2a.inet.it [213.92.5.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05AD33A6AE9 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ::ffff:212.234.174.155 ([::ffff:212.234.174.155]) by slim-2a.inet.it via I-SMTP-5.6.0-560 id ::ffff:212.234.174.155+cePD6cqrB; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:09:18 +0200
From: "Claudio Telmon" <claudio@telmon.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
X-wmSenderIP: 212.234.174.155
Message-ID: <212.234.174.155.751333572.1245920958@webmail.inet.it>
In-Reply-To: <4A426B9D.7090901@mines-paristech.fr>
References: <20090623213728.1825.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4A41D773.50508@telmon.org> <4A41E506.2010106@mines-paristech.fr> <20090624160052.B5DC62428A@panix5.panix.com> <4A426B9D.7090901@mines-paristech.fr>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:09:18 +0000
X-Mailer: NGI Webmail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: claudio@telmon.org, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:50:40 -0000

> Da: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr>
> Ther's a big difference between VPNs and consent.
> 
> VPNs are really private - information about VPNs instances (IP address of entry points, 
> protocol, flavour, ...) aren't public and aren't available to unknown users.
> 
> Consent users information is public : Claudio Telmon email address is public and known by 
> everybody.

I can't follow you on this. A telnet port is public, yet you must be welcome in order to use the service.The same for ftp, where you access the service, but the owner decides what to share with everybody (public ftp) and what to keep just for some buddies (authenticated). It has always been like this, Internet has been about sharing, but just what the owner wants to share. I choose this two very old services because they are part of the Internet since the beginning. This long before the Internet being about freedom, which is an issue that came up much later.

---
Claudio Telmon
claudio@telmon.org
http://www.telmon.org