Danny, Bob can fuel this arguement this topic for years and needs no prompting from anyone. Don't get me wrong technically speaking he's on the ball, but politically speaking like all technicians suck. This arguement should be binned and not fueled. Bob, if you got this mail then give it a rest. The IETF does a great job and does'nt deserve or warrent this attack. The people who deserve it are the politicians who are trying to implement "laws" on the use of the InterNet, have a go at them and leave this group alone. Have a nice now. Regards Mark Paton CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng Mercury Network Systems Limited +44 585 649051 +44 1256 761925 http://www.mnsl.org "Mercury Network Systems - The Unstoppable Force" This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the named addressee or the person responsible for delivering the message to the named addressee, please telephone us immediately. Please note that we cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. The views of the author may not necessarily reflect those of the Company. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Iacovou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 23 May 2000 20:13 To: Bob Allisat Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IETF *is* computer crime. Hello Bob, I think you are being too harsh on the IETF, ISOC, ICANN, ITU, and "whatever other unsanctioned, informal acretion of pseudo-authorities should arise". As an example, a group of people decided to coordinate efforts in order to communicate with each other. They agreed on a format for the correspondance, and they agreed on a delivery protocol. Before you know it, email is born. Such efforts are a good thing. By agreeing with each other on the mechanics of such a transaction we've enabled the transaction to occur (aside from actual implementation). What wasn't agreed on? Well, one thing not agreed on is what to do if correspondance is sent 'anonymously', containing material that may be of interest to some authority of law, in some country (not even connected to the 'Net at the time email is "standardized"). And of course this is but one possible scenerio not accounted for by the standard describing format and delivery of one particular type of electronic correspondance. But the standard never tried to address any issues it didn't address - it is complete in what it is. That isn't anyone's fault, is it? technologists are technologists, not students of international law. The goal of the IETF is to get us from point A to point B. It isn't to get us from point A to point B with no shit (for lack of a better word) in our way. ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- Neophytos Iacovou University of Minnesota Academic & Distributed Computing Services 100 Union St. SE email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Paton;Mark.;J.S;; FN:Mark. J.S Paton ORG:Mnsl;Consultancy TITLE:Network Design / Support TEL;WORK;VOICE:+44 0585 649051 TEL;CELL;VOICE:+44 (0585) 649051 ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;Basingstoke;Willow Cottage=0D=0AReading Road;Mattingley;Hampshire;RG27 8JU;= United Kingdom LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Basingstoke=0D=0AWillow Cottage=0D=0AReading Road=0D=0AMattingley, Hampshire= RG27 8JU=0D=0AUnited Kingdom URL: URL:http://www.mnsl.org EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:19990422T133901Z END:VCARD
