|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: "Default" Internet "Re: Re: Re:"
[email protected] (Scott Weeks) writes: > : Also the problem of off shoring spam probably should be taken into > : consideration. No matter how good the plan is if a country is willing > : not to enforce it there will be a problem. > > <ding, ding, ding> We have a winner! Someone please give sgorman1 a > cigar for winning the NA vs. global network game in this round! so, we're back to the need to establish this by international treaty, again. for some reason we can require passengers to be fingerprinted if they didn't come from an approved airport, or let them through without checking their passport at all if they're from the same league of nations as "us", and make IMF money contingent on severing or establishing diplomatic ties with countries we dislike or like... but we balk at the idea of making it illegal for UUNET to connect their end of an E3 to a router if the other end touches down in a country who won't control their cybernauts. yes, that would mean a whole lot of homework for somebody, since you could multihop through middlemen at various ISO layers, repacketize, and so on. but even though it's still possible to ship all manner of contraband across every border in the world, it's HARDER TO DO if the country on at least one side of that border MAKES SOME KIND OF EFFORT AT STOPPING IT. if some country somewhere becomes a haven for spammers then the international community will have to isolate them (cybernetically) in their own defense. we can argue about anything else that pleases us, invent all the rules and new technology we want, but it will all come down to treaties between nations. unfortunately, my own nation is so interested in appeasing our spammers that they are unable to provide any leadership in this area. someone else should step up. -- Paul Vixie
|