Re:not the answer - you got that right!
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
1) A way of verifying if you're allowed to use said mail server. Easy. Simple login/password over encrypted connection - technology already in place.
That's the one I want to see. I don't mind if the email address is anonymous, as long as it doesn't bounce; but what I'd really like is for the ISPs to be able to trace junk email to a specific person and nail 'em for breach of contract at least (wrt AUP etc).
That will leave spammers using a smaller and smaller number of hosts which have AUP that permit spam... likely to be the only feature of those hosts. Much easier to block.
Or make it easier for me to permit mail only from hosts that really do enforce a no spam policy.
Quite right. But it means nothing if the government takes weeks to decide they can't be bothered with a 2 day recount.
Well, that's politics, and politics is always messy.
I agree, though, that having the technical stuff as user-friendly, fault-tolerant, and auditable as possible has to be the priority for the mechanics of voting. I like the concept of cards that can be visually confirmed, but also run through a reader (machine) by the voter before submitting, so the machine can comment on things like voting twice, unreadable marks, or whatever.
If the politicians do things like accidentally "lose" the cards, or fail to set up rules for recounts, or whatever, well, we have checks and balances for that too, sort of.
I agree with you. But what's preventing it is the political process, and money. The marketing folks industry has gobs of money to spend on legislators. They do their "poor us" routine, how hard it will be to market their legitimate products, how much the GDP will drop if they can't market properly, and how it's really a First Amendment (Free Speech) issue; then they slip the legislator's campaign committee or PAC a fat check, and -- surprise -- opt out is the "official" policy of the US government.
At least financial institutions have been sending out privacy disclosures with an opt-out form to their customers (required by law). But it is still an opt out, not an opt in.
This is a political issue, folks. The First Amendment issue is real, and it will take some effort to craft rules that don't restrict free speech. But legislators could figure out how to do that, if they weren't being paid off so handsomely by the marketing industry.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the one I want to see. I don't mind if the email address is anonymous, as long as it doesn't bounce; but what I'd really like is for the ISPs to be able to trace junk email to a specific person and nail 'em for breach of contract at least (wrt AUP etc).
That will leave spammers using a smaller and smaller number of hosts which have AUP that permit spam ... likely to be the only feature of those hosts. Much easier to block.
Or make it easier for me to permit mail only from hosts that really do enforce a no spam policy.
Those systems can be audited, after a fashion. The computerized closed source systems with no paper trail cannot.
Quite right. But it means nothing if the government takes weeks to decide they can't be bothered with a 2 day recount. Well, that's politics, and politics is always messy. I agree, though, that having the technical stuff as user-friendly, fault-tolerant, and auditable as possible has to be the priority for the mechanics of voting. I like the concept of cards that can be visually confirmed, but also run through a reader (machine) by the voter before submitting, so the machine can comment on things like voting twice, unreadable marks, or whatever. If the politicians do things like accidentally "lose" the cards, or fail to set up rules for recounts, or whatever, well, we have checks and balances for that too, sort of.
I agree with you. But what's preventing it is the political process, and money. The marketing folks industry has gobs of money to spend on legislators. They do their "poor us" routine, how hard it will be to market their legitimate products, how much the GDP will drop if they can't market properly, and how it's really a First Amendment (Free Speech) issue; then they slip the legislator's campaign committee or PAC a fat check, and -- surprise -- opt out is the "official" policy of the US government. At least financial institutions have been sending out privacy disclosures with an opt-out form to their customers (required by law). But it is still an opt out, not an opt in. This is a political issue, folks. The First Amendment issue is real, and it will take some effort to craft rules that don't restrict free speech. But legislators could figure out how to do that, if they weren't being paid off so handsomely by the marketing industry.