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

[Ian Eiloart <[e-mail]>]

--On 24 June 2009 20:08:29 +0200 Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Seth wrote:
>> Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You're right when you say that sometimes some people may want to use
>>> internet as a private network. But this is contrary to internet
>>> philosophy.
>>
>
> Hmmmmm.....
>
>> No, it isn't.  The Internet philosophy is "we ship bits around.
>
> That's what spammers do...
>
>> Interpretation is someone else's problem."
>
> and this is what usual spam filters do.

You miss his point. You're talking about senders and recipients, he's 
talking about different protocol layers (IP versus VPN, perhaps). For an 
Internet application like VPN or SMTP to work, both the sender and the 
recipient need to have the same interpretation of what the bits mean.

Similarly, a conversation is just exchange of words, for it to be useful, 
both the sender and receiver need to have (at least to some approximation) 
the same interpretation of each word. ;)

> In your idea, the problem is pushed into recipients. Consent pushes the
> problem to the sender.
>
> Either way, I don't think we can agree.
>
>>
>> VPNs aren't against that philosophy, they're embraced by it.
>
> 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.



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/