Re: Anonimity and cost [was] Re: Why are we here? What are our goals?

Hector Santos wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Yakov Shafranovich" <[email protected]>
> 
>>Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
>>
>>>    -- enhanced tracing mechanisms
>>
>>This brings to mind privacy and anonimity. Should they be on the list as
>>well? How do we balance the tracing requirement with the need for
>>privacy and anonimity?
> 
> We don't balance it.  We design with CONTROL in mind - no loopholes.
> Anonimity is an implementation issue, i.e,  I can give you "alias" address
> to spam but you will have a "user account" to do so.
> 
> Alias Access and Anonymous access are TWO different ideas.  I don't have a
> problem with the first.  The INDUSTRY has a problem with the latter.  The
> idea of "untracable" anonymous access is why we are here in the first place.
> 

I believe what you are refering to is access control over network nodes 
that introduce email into the MTS. While we might need access control 
over network nodes themselves, is there a reason to go further and 
authenticate individual senders? All we really care about is whether a 
specific network node is rogue or responsible, what they do with their 
users is none of our business. This is where privacy and anonimity might 
play a role - how far do you go?

Yakov

P.S. I still believe that many of today's spam issues can be solved if 
the ISPs cooperated better. This is a human issue and will remain. The 
question is how to make sure that a rogue MTS node is detected, if the 
human cooperation fails.
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my 
tongue." (MIT's 404 Message)
-------