[linux-elitists] Haha, SpamCop lists Debian

Eugen Leitl eugen@leitl.org
Sun Jul 7 03:02:04 PDT 2002


On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Karsten M. Self wrote:

> However, given definition 1 of "organism" from dict:
> 
>     From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44
>     [gcide]:
> 
>     Organism \Or"gan*ism\, n. [Cf. F. organisme.] 1. Organic structure;
>     organization. ``The advantageous organism of the eye.'' --Grew.
>     [1913 Webster]

So you're arguing that the global network should cease to have global
(well, minus the few % which are unreachable at any time due to routing
table screwage) connectivity (a GoodThing(tm) you said) because it's an
organism. When argued that it is nothing like a biological organism, you
give me a quote from a 1913 dictionary that an organism is organical, and
organized. Wow man! Like, totally. Sounds like an excellent mandate to
screw up routing tables, and put random filtering rules into routers. 
Excuse me, I prefer backhoes and plastique. Is quicker.
 
> The 'Net has inputs, outputs, connections, and moves things between
> hosts.  It serves many of the functions of an organism, or if you
> prefer, a colony (ants, slime molds, Portugese Man o'War).  Among these
> are the selection of good and bad inputs.

Good and bad, eh. Obviously, users, spammers, telcos, companies and
goverments all agree on what constitutes a good and bad input. Who are 
you, and what did you do with the real Karsten?
 
> Both man-made and capability of mathematic description are orthogonal to
> being an organism.

Human engineering so far looks remarkably unlike biology.
An organism is assuredly not a totally connected graph.
--> orthogonal, my ass.
 
> > > membranes, its structures to allow nutrients and deny noxious elements.
> > > There are better and worse ways to do this, but doing it of and by
> > > itself is a neutral (actually, I believe it's a Good Thing?).
> > 
> > I disagree vehemently.
> 
> Well, we agree on one thing.

I agree that there's resource abuse which need fixing, but that's a design
shortcoming. Protocols as designed don't have agoric load levelling. (The
routing is also geography-agnostic, and address allocation is not
automatic and the addresses are spoofable, but that's for another thread).

Manually denying services to abusers is fraught with friendly fire, 
coarse, since boolean, and maladaptive if not irreversible.





More information about the linux-elitists mailing list