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

Seth <> Thu, 25 June 2009 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BC13A6A07 for <>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OnQBjiz3tB36 for <>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54B13A6967 for <>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6449395E0 for <>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 756) id 93DCE2428A; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Seth <>
In-reply-to: <> (message from Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:08:29 +0200)
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:11:45 -0000

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <>
> Seth wrote:

>> No, it isn't.  The Internet philosophy is "we ship bits around.
> That's what spammers do...

And pirates, and people sending email to their aunts, and people
making VOIP phone calls to their lovers, and . . .

That's what using the Internet _means_.

>> Interpretation is someone else's problem."
> and this is what usual spam filters do.

And every application likewise.

> In your idea, the problem is pushed into recipients.

I didn't say that.  The Internet moves bits around; that's what IP
does.  You put a packet into the Internet, with a specified
destination address, and the Internet gets it there (or not).

> Consent pushes the problem to the sender.

Consent is at a higher level, just like interpretation (though consent
is around level 9).

>> VPNs aren't against that philosophy, they're embraced by it.
> Ther's a big difference between VPNs and consent.

They aren't anywhere near the same thing.  Why are you comparing them?

> 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.

Whether or not they are is up to the owner of the equipment providing
the VPN.  (Hint: encrypted proxies are VPNs, and with the current
events in Iran there are a lot of public ones.)

> Consent users information is public

What does that mean?  Information that is mine is public to the extent
I publicize it.

> Claudio Telmon email address is public and known by everybody.

Very unlikely.  Even "" isn't known by

And I personally have hundreds of email addresses, each of which is
(or should be) known by precisely one entity.