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

[Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <[e-mail]>]

Claudio Telmon wrote:
> John Levine wrote:

...

> It could turn down to a private network in some cases, but in general
> people would still be able to contact each other. But if you mean that
> anybody should be able send messages to whoever he wants, and expect
> that they are accepted unless they are collectively classified as
> "spam", whatever this means (vs. being considered undesired by the
> receiver), or sent by a misbehaved agent, this is not what I want. My
> guess is exactly this, that a lot of people don't want it either, and
> would appreciate to be able to use the current tools and protocols with
> some control on correspondents. Cell phones are not a private network,
> and people like to have (some of) this control.

There are some very big philosophic differences between "cell phones networks" and 
internet. Among them, internet is a "freedom space". And that's the main reason why spam 
is a difficult problem to solve.

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.

IMHO, there are little chance to see new standards allowing/enabling using internet as a 
private network. But if people want to  do it, the best way isn't to set up a new 
standard, but just creating a proprietary and closed protocol to set up his private 
network. No need to publish it, nor to create a RFC about it, just set it up with your 
friends.

A good example of consent is Donald Knuth. He has a web page explaining how to contact 
him. It's simple and efficient, and doesn't require any new standard to continue working.

   http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html