[linux-elitists] Haha, SpamCop lists Debian
Karsten M. Self
Sun Jul 7 23:37:20 PDT 2002
on Sun, Jul 07, 2002, Eugen Leitl (email@example.com) wrote:
> 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 point: organism has the general property of beneficial
organization -- a structure or arrangement of parts. This includes
_selection_ of constituent parts.
Your backhoes and plastique argument is a nice sweeping generalization.
Note that random destruction is *not* organization. What we're
discussing here is selective discrimination of parts of a network which
have shown, proven, or are believed to be hostile. The Usenet Death
Penalty is a well known, and quite effective, instrument.
The corollary, if I read you right, is that the entire network _must_ be
connected, to all nodes, at any time. Sorry, that's where I get off the
bus: mandated transport, or mandated denial, is authoritarian rule. I
don't vote that way.
> > 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, Portuguese Man o'War). Among
> > these are the selection of good and bad inputs.
> Good and bad, eh. Obviously, users, spammers, telcos, companies and
> governments all agree on what constitutes a good and bad input. Who are
> you, and what did you do with the real Karsten?
The sig I've seen in the past few days is "Spam is a matter of consent,
not content". We're talking about individual decisions, of individual
nodes, over how they are or aren't going to participate with other
peers. You object to this?
The service denial can be at various levels. DNS blackholing is severe.
SMTP denial is a lesser, and in the case of spam, probably appropriate,
I am a figment of my imagination.
> > > > 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
I don't find this word in my online dictionary, dictionary.com, or the
two bound volumes I've got at my side. Closest I can come is "agora",
the ancient Greek marketplace. Ahh... that appears to be the ticket:
> 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.
I'm willing to accept some innocent casualties. In the static view,
this is bad. In the dynamic view, these are agents for our side, who
will call for sufficient reforms within their own
organizations/networks, or splinter from within the untrusted network to
form a trusted one, restoring order and utility to the system as a whole.
Karsten M. Self <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
zIWETHEY: Not just a stick in the MUD: http://z.iwethey.org/forums/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20020707/d4593410/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists