Re: anti-spam collateral damage

Eric S. Johansson wrote:
|
| I think we are actually an agreement, we're just trying to figure out 
| the boundaries.  Once we agree, then we need to convince the rest of the 
| world.  ;-)

You've been convincing me by inches in this rather abstract friendly
argument we've been having but your other post[1] gave me the chills.

I still feel that people who own an interface should control that
interface. I think it's best to build up enough momentum behind a
positive solution like hashcash that the vigilantes become dinosaurs
through market force.

I'll see what I can do to accomplish this.

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.hashcash/683

-Dave
-- 
GNU GPL: "The source will be with you... always."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBnEHd2+4fEumBbV4RAtU1AJ48ziH3iMYbXKWAp0Ktkq7j/dgKWwCfebLl
6/g63mkOvNwidH3w4+UqBpE=
=Q5sD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----