Re: (fwd) Re: Real Espresso Coffee

ColorNet Robin <jrobin@ATELIER.FR> Mon, 19 June 2000 19:20 UTC

Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21102 for <run-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:20:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA02301; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233998 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:05:08 -0700
Received: from mailhost.atelier.fr (bbs.atelier.fr [212.73.218.8]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA02297 for <ietf-run@mailbag.intel.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
References: <80brksgb70l7tqq127dc6ra6ricmkbd62l@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <fc.000f8e9e004bb62e3b9aca00d6388569.4bb63a@atelier.fr>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 07:47:55 +0200
Reply-To: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sender: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com>
From: ColorNet Robin <jrobin@ATELIER.FR>
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Real Espresso Coffee
Comments: To: jcdill@VO.CNCHOST.COM
To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com
In-Reply-To: <80brksgb70l7tqq127dc6ra6ricmkbd62l@4ax.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

jcdill@VO.CNCHOST.COM a écrit:
>If there was ever any doubt (as if) that our draft is sorely
>needed, here is a textbook case in point.
>
>jc

Sorry to but in - but again taking up my minority viewpoint of some months
ago I feel the argument is to a great extent out of court.

IMHO
1)  Looking ahead 3 years bandwidth and access payments will not be a
problem
2)  The argument regarding ONLINE OFFLINE legislation still holds good and
55% of US surface mail is junk mail
3)  What constitutes SPAM remains a moot question - and the implications
for censorship of free circulation of information outweigh local skin deep
 irritation - however justified that remains.
4)  With IPv6 there will be ways of tracking and backtracking SPAM will be
the rule rather than the exception
5)  This is an unfortunate spin off of this stage of the internet but
cannot be sensibly fought against as a purely online phenomenon
6)  Perhaps closer ties with ISTF may be thought worthwhile - as ISTF will
be looking to IETF in the area of Security and Privacy

best regards Jonathan Robin
ISSG ISTF