nanog mailing list archives
Re: very confusing.
From: Charles Morris <cmorris () cs odu edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:47:37 -0400
Don't get me wrong, I greatly dislike spam, but next thing you know it will be against the law to send packets to someone you don't have consent from... or hand out pamphlets / talk to someone on the street you don't have consent from... I figure the solution here that fits with the best interests of the people, or really with any internet problem, is a defensive or cryptographic one; instead of an offensive or law-based punitive solution. e.g. Requiring proof-of-work headers for email that doesn't want a speedy descent into /dev/null
Current thread:
- Re: very confusing. Randy Bush (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Richard Golodner (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. jim deleskie (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Nick Hilliard (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Mark Andrews (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Charles Morris (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Randy Epstein (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Mark Andrews (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Richard Golodner (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Lynda (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Greg Ihnen (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Joe Greco (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Owen DeLong (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. George Herbert (Jun 13)
- Re: very confusing. Joe Greco (Jun 13)