At 04:11 20/03/04, DPF wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:35:59 -0800 (PST), Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Does anyone at ICANN care about this problem;It is not their problem as it does not involve domain names or IP addressing specifically.
Untrue.ICANN pretends to share in the technical govenance of the Internet. As such it operates the IANA functions. IANA registers the parameters of the Internet technology - that IETF or other specify. One of these parameters is the "MX" DNS RR. It therefore falls into the responsbility of Vint Cerf or/and John Klensin to make the ICANN BoD to solve the spam issue in entering a new RR (I suggest "NX") to indicate the IP address of the no-spam mail server related to a domain name. The same way as they adopted the funny "XN" for IDNA.
What people will do with their NX server is another story, which is of no concern to ICANN. "NX" would only permit users to have the cybernetic basis for a solution. (Cybernetics means "efficient governance based upon experience" - Plato+Wienner+Couffignal - what DARPA translates into "command" and ICANN into "status quo").
This would for example permit me to implement a prioritised mail server where seenders would know that a mail is presumed received only if acked by me.
You cannot move ahead if you are kept mudded in the common jam. All IETF's people ideas (no so many yet right now) if they are not given a way out of the spammed system first. As long they are stuck into "MX" , they will have MX problems. Give them a way out and you will see that the users themsleves will get themsleves out of the jam pretty fast. IETF will then stabilize their solutions (probably mostly Good Practices at the begining).
The rest is blahblah. Laws never brought a solution nor created a solution. Laws are to protect status quo and permit the development of existing solutions. US Anti-Spam law is to remove spam from amateurs to give it to professionals. Like TV advertzing before, or ads on road sides, etc.
jfc