... If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers....
And if they are made that way, then WHAT, pray tell, are the pilots supposed to do when they have to go to the bathroom?? Crank down the window and look for a gas station??
I think some people are forgetting an important aspect of the MTA/PCA issue:
What's to stop people from becoming their *own* "trusted authority"?
I mean, why rely on someone ELSE -- some big ISP or "Certificate Authority" (Verisign, etc) -- to ultimately say who is trustworthy TO YOU and who isn't? Why not rely on YOURSELF? (or your trusted friends?)
From my reading of the paper *anyone* could ultimately become an "authority", determining who is and who is not allowed to send email to a given person (with the "given person" in this case being oneself).
Thus I can envision a sort of "peer-to-peer" email delivery network arising from this idea wherein everyone, over time, builds their own database of "trusted sources" that would be allowed to send them email (or rather, whose email a person would be willing to accept email FROM). A private "white list" if you will.
With this approach we each only accept email from individuals/organizations that WE OURSELVES trust, -or-, optionally (on an individual by individual basis), who are trusted by others whose judgement we ourselves trust.
The email delivery "network" would thus reduce to everyone/anyone participating in the delivery/authentication of email, ala the old "circle of friends" approach.
You want to send me email? Fine. Then you need to either be someone I personally know (and thus someone I myself trust; i.e. a friend) or else someone who knows someone I trust (i.e. a "friend of one of my friends"). If you're not one of those types of people, then I'm not interested in receiving your email. Full stop.
Each person could configure their own levels of trust (i.e. how far removed from their own close circle of friends someone could be and still be allowed to send you email).
The spammers would end up quickly developing their own "circle of friends", sending and delivering their spam amongst themselves (and/or amongst demented individuals who liked receiving such junk) whereas the rest of us sane individuals would end up developing our own separate "trusted circle of friends" who would automatically reject any email from people they didn't trust (i.e. the spammers).
This COULD work...
I think some people are forgetting an important aspect of the MTA/PCA issue:
What's to stop people from becoming their *own* "trusted authority"?
I mean, why rely on someone ELSE -- some big ISP or "Certificate Authority" (Verisign, etc) -- to ultimately say who is trustworthy TO YOU and who isn't? Why not rely on YOURSELF? (or your trusted friends?)
From my reading of the paper *anyone* could ultimately become an "authority", determining who is and who is not allowed to send email to a given person (with the "given person" in this case being oneself).
Thus I can envision a sort of "peer-to-peer" email delivery network arising from this idea wherein everyone, over time, builds their own database of "trusted sources" that would be allowed to send them email (or rather, whose email a person would be willing to accept email FROM). A private "white list" if you will.
With this approach we each only accept email from individuals/organizations that WE OURSELVES trust, -or-, optionally (on an individual by individual basis), who are trusted by others whose judgement we ourselves trust.
The email delivery "network" would thus reduce to everyone/anyone participating in the delivery/authentication of email, ala the old "circle of friends" approach.
You want to send me email? Fine. Then you need to either be someone I personally know (and thus someone I myself trust; i.e. a friend) or else someone who knows someone I trust (i.e. a "friend of one of my friends"). If you're not one of those types of people, then I'm not interested in receiving your email. Full stop.
Each person could configure their own levels of trust (i.e. how far removed from their own close circle of friends someone could be and still be allowed to send you email).
The spammers would end up quickly developing their own "circle of friends", sending and delivering their spam amongst themselves (and/or amongst demented individuals who liked receiving such junk) whereas the rest of us sane individuals would end up developing our own separate "trusted circle of friends" who would automatically reject any email from people they didn't trust (i.e. the spammers).
A "trusted" peer-to-peer email delivery network.
It COULD work.
Couldn't it?
Or am I missing something here??
Slashdot Mirror
And if they are made that way, then WHAT, pray tell, are the pilots supposed to do when they have to go to the bathroom?? Crank down the window and look for a gas station??
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
fish(at)infidels.org
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE!
http://www.cauce.org/
...is already on it's way (and has been for several months now[1]).
Look for it in the [VERY] near future.
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
[1] Ref: news.grc.com, group: grc.spinrite.dev.
NOT funny! :(
Me too!
3 75 10582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 79821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081 28481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381 96442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190 91456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412 73724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364 36789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160 94330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185 48074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949 12983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217 98609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051 32000568127145263560827785771342757789609173637178 72146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892 35420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099 60518707211349999998372978049951059731732816096318 59502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118 81710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473 03598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957 78185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019 89380952572010654858632788659361533818279682303019 52035301852968995773622599413891249721775283479131 51557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509 83817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488240 12858361603563707660104710181942955596198946767837 44944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949 12933136770289891521047521620569660240580381501935 11253382430035587640247496473263914199272604269922 79678235478163600934172164121992458631503028618297 45557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029 55321165344987202755960236480665499119881834797753 56636980742654252786255181841757467289097777279380 00816470600161452491921732172147723501414419735685 48161361157352552133475741849468438523323907394143 33454776241686251898356948556209921922218427255025 42568876717904946016534668049886272327917860857843 83827967976681454100953883786360950680064225125205 11739298489608412848862694560424196528502221066118 63067442786220391949450471237137869609563643719172 87467764657573962413890865832645995813390478027590 09946576407895126946839...
But I'd rate it at:
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
fish@infidels.org
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE!
http://www.cauce.org/
This COULD work...
I think some people are forgetting an important aspect of the MTA/PCA issue:
What's to stop people from becoming their *own* "trusted authority"?
I mean, why rely on someone ELSE -- some big ISP or "Certificate Authority" (Verisign, etc) -- to ultimately say who is trustworthy TO YOU and who isn't? Why not rely on YOURSELF? (or your trusted friends?)
From my reading of the paper *anyone* could ultimately become an "authority", determining who is and who is not allowed to send email to a given person (with the "given person" in this case being oneself).
Thus I can envision a sort of "peer-to-peer" email delivery network arising from this idea wherein everyone, over time, builds their own database of "trusted sources" that would be allowed to send them email (or rather, whose email a person would be willing to accept email FROM). A private "white list" if you will.
With this approach we each only accept email from individuals/organizations that WE OURSELVES trust, -or-, optionally (on an individual by individual basis), who are trusted by others whose judgement we ourselves trust.
The email delivery "network" would thus reduce to everyone/anyone participating in the delivery/authentication of email, ala the old "circle of friends" approach.
You want to send me email? Fine. Then you need to either be someone I personally know (and thus someone I myself trust; i.e. a friend) or else someone who knows someone I trust (i.e. a "friend of one of my friends"). If you're not one of those types of people, then I'm not interested in receiving your email. Full stop.
Each person could configure their own levels of trust (i.e. how far removed from their own close circle of friends someone could be and still be allowed to send you email).
The spammers would end up quickly developing their own "circle of friends", sending and delivering their spam amongst themselves (and/or amongst demented individuals who liked receiving such junk) whereas the rest of us sane individuals would end up developing our own separate "trusted circle of friends" who would automatically reject any email from people they didn't trust (i.e. the spammers).
A "trusted" peer-to-peer email delivery network.
It COULD work.
Couldn't it?
Or am I missing something here??
This COULD work... I think some people are forgetting an important aspect of the MTA/PCA issue: What's to stop people from becoming their *own* "trusted authority"? I mean, why rely on someone ELSE -- some big ISP or "Certificate Authority" (Verisign, etc) -- to ultimately say who is trustworthy TO YOU and who isn't? Why not rely on YOURSELF? (or your trusted friends?) From my reading of the paper *anyone* could ultimately become an "authority", determining who is and who is not allowed to send email to a given person (with the "given person" in this case being oneself). Thus I can envision a sort of "peer-to-peer" email delivery network arising from this idea wherein everyone, over time, builds their own database of "trusted sources" that would be allowed to send them email (or rather, whose email a person would be willing to accept email FROM). A private "white list" if you will. With this approach we each only accept email from individuals/organizations that WE OURSELVES trust, -or-, optionally (on an individual by individual basis), who are trusted by others whose judgement we ourselves trust. The email delivery "network" would thus reduce to everyone/anyone participating in the delivery/authentication of email, ala the old "circle of friends" approach. You want to send me email? Fine. Then you need to either be someone I personally know (and thus someone I myself trust; i.e. a friend) or else someone who knows someone I trust (i.e. a "friend of one of my friends"). If you're not one of those types of people, then I'm not interested in receiving your email. Full stop. Each person could configure their own levels of trust (i.e. how far removed from their own close circle of friends someone could be and still be allowed to send you email). The spammers would end up quickly developing their own "circle of friends", sending and delivering their spam amongst themselves (and/or amongst demented individuals who liked receiving such junk) whereas the rest of us sane individuals would end up developing our own separate "trusted circle of friends" who would automatically reject any email from people they didn't trust (i.e. the spammers). A "trusted" peer-to-peer email delivery network. It COULD work. Couldn't it? Or am I missing something here??