Re: Consent (was Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article )

J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> wrote:
> Lack of objection does not mean consent, and lack of consent does not
> mean lack of objection.

  Exactly.  A proposal like RMX allows consent (and objections) to be
applied before the fact, not after it.

> Dictating on an Internet-wide scale that only centralised systems
> can send mail is Wrong.

  I don't see how that applies to RMX.  See below...

> Assume RMX becomes popular and widely deployed.  Will you accept mail
> from a node which doesn't have an RMX record or which is outside of the
> RMX record stated for that domain?

  That's my private choice, and I don't see why it's any of your
business.

> No, I don't want to impose a __centralised__mandated__model__ on mail
> traffic control.  Please ensure you read the underlined words, then
> compare the external behaviour of RMX to the simple public-key/crypto
> model I mentioned a few messages ago.

  RMX is even better than your toy model.  It doesn't require key
distribution.  If the domain owner establishes consent for all IP's in
a range (ANY range), then he can add wild-card DNS records, to reply
'yes' to RMX consent queries.  Heck, he can add wildcard RMX records
for the entire Internet, if he so desires.  <plink> No centralized
control, and your objection disappears.

  But RMX allows domain administrators to ALSO make less wide-ranging
statements of consent.  Those statements cannot currently be made at
all.

> In a sense I'm taking the free speech argument, one which is also often
> used by spammers.  Are all free speech arguments necessarily bad because
> spammers also use them?

  No, your arguments about free speech fall flat when they involve
limiting my speech, so that you can have less limited speech.

> Should the holder of the DNS keys be a dictator over all the mail sent
> from his domain?  You say, "Yes!"  I say, "Hell no!"

  I say "He should be permitted to do that, if he so chooses."

  You say "My choice is to forbid him from making that choice."

  Phrased that way, your position becomes less than friendly, and less
than open.  So I'm skeptical about your claims of "free speech."

> While we each run our own little private fiefdoms in regard to our
> mail systems, the exchange of mail in general across the 'net
> requires a basis in common consensus.

  That sounds reasonable.

> If that consensus is defined in terms of RMX deployment, then that
> is a cost and requirement that neither you or I have choice over.

  That doesn't sound reasonable.

> In essence it is a dictate that I, and you, and every other domain
> on the 'net MUST run centralised control over the behaviour of all
> nodes in our domains.

  I still have no clue where you get this "dictate" idea from.

> What I'm campaigning against is a progression that takes your
> individual choice, along with others, and makes it a net-wide
> dictate.

  Who said anything about dictating the behaviour for the net?  I
didn't.  I have said REPEATEDLY that I want everyone to choose the
behaviour that makes them happy.  What would make me happy is if
people filtered spam in certain ways, but I categorically refuse to
dictate that they do so.

  I think that's the crux of the miscommunication here.  I say "I want
choice for me", and you hear "Everyone else must follow Alan's
choice."

> I also don't want to be in the position of going to every other
> domain out there and telling them, "You must elect your DNSmaster as
> your mail dictator."

  If that's a requirement you have for consenting to exchange email
with people, I don't see why you should be forbidden from making
unreasonable requests of people.  If they choose to abide by those
requests, that's a consentual relationship between two adults, and
it's not really my problem.

  So the truth comes out: You don't want two people to consent to
engage in mutual behaviour that you find reprehensible, even if that
behaviour doesn't affect other people.

  That's an attempt at massive censorship, and make me understand your
comments about "dictates".  "Methinks you doth protest too much."  

  Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg