Re: How security could benefit from high volume spam

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 23:10 14/12/2005, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:46:42PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
> The best way to hide a signal is noise, is that's your idea ?
> Makes sense from my POV.


Not necessarily the _best_ way, but one that works under many
circumstances.
Some questions are:
How do we deal with the total surveillance?
Do anti-spam measures make surveillance easier?

Hadmut,
not much success with your suggestion! Too much European centric at the moment. Your proposition is of real interest as part of a picture to study the noise as a general protection (conflicting information, spam, revamping web sites 1000 times a day, meta-spam, tags, EUCD, civilrights protection, bandwidth cost, site legal registration, multiligualism, debate orientation, etc.). The French law related debate make it very interesting, and important, however too complex for current users at this time. This fits the interests I have in the emergence of an "over the ISO layers" Internet through a grassroots process. How to use the Internet? But the IAB discuss list leads to nothing.

Why not to try to shape a WG Charter on this? I do not believe the IESG is able to follow. But when I see all the ICANN, IETF, Unicode, etc. meetings, publications, etc. etc. about "internationalization", partly to oppose my long enough opposition which permitted me to reach Tunis. One could expect that Brussels could be interested at the end of the day. And if the IESG does not follow, we will have made our duty, before going elsewhere? I do not think that the balkanization they impose on us is a good thing.

jfc



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]