Re: NEVER USE SORBS
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:28:56AM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
> At 07:51 AM 7/27/2006 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >an elevator is a shared space. a
>
> Ur exactly right. And so too the Internet is a shared space where
the internet is a shared space. a private mail server is not. it is
private property that has a connection to the internet for the benefit
of the owner & other authorised users.
> one person does can have far reaching implications. One person doing
> something lazy/wrong/boneheaded/whatever can cause grief for somebody
> else who otherwise would have nothing to do with that person. (ref:
> how do i explain ttl and rdns to the end luser) It comes down to
> thinking about the other guy.
pandering to idiots who couldn't be bothered understanding simple things
is a complete waste of time. you can do what you want with your own
time and energy, but don't expect others to share your priorities.
i'm more concerned with blocking spam than i am with making sure that
every idiot understands the rationale behind each and every anti-spam
rule/method/technique that i use.
> >mail server is private property and the owner/admin has every right
> >to restrict access using whatever criteria they like.
>
> Strictly true but not real world.
it is very much real world.
> Publicness is the defining characteristic of the Internet that makes
> it work.
a mail server is not the internet. it is a device connected to the internet.
> >that would be good....but it will only happen if people who think
> >they have a right to access other people's mail servers whenever they
> >want, even against the owners' wishes, will stop whining.
>
> The presumption of public access vs. the presumption of privacy.
> There is the presumption of permission to enter when u go to a
> shopping mall. There is the presumption of permission to go up to
> somebody's front door. There is not the presumption of permission to
> walk into somebody's living room.
to put your bogus analogy in context the internet is the public street,
and a mail server is a private residence in that street. you have a
right to walk along that public street but, as you say, you don't have
the right to enter the private residences on that street. you may or may
not have a (revocable) presumptive right to knock and request entry, but
you do not have the right to demand entry.
if the owner of that private property ignores your knock or decides that
s/he isn't going to let you in because s/he doesn't like the colour of
your shoes (or any other completely arbitrary criteria) then you just
have to accept that. it's their property.
> It goes to the publicly understood purpose.
no, it doesn't. 'publicly understood purpose' is bullshit you just made
up. you can 'publicly understand' that the purpose of my front lawn is
to be a toilet for your dog as much as you like but that doesn't change
the fact that any unauthorised entry onto my front lawn is trespass.
> The purpose of a shopping mall is to sell things to the public.
> Nobody has to "find out" if they're allowed into a mall before they
> go.
they can, however, be refused entry or be banned from future entry for
any arbitrary reason that the owner of the mall chooses. it's private
property with some limited (and revocable) public access permission.
in some jurisdictions there may be certain legal restrictions on the
mall owner's ability to arbitrarily discriminate against particular
protected 'classes' of people (e.g. skin colour, gender, sexual
orientation, etc), but even there they can set entry criteria as long as
they are universal. e.g. you can ban untidy or overly casual clothing as
long as that applies to everyone and not just to blacks or gays or women
or some other particular group.
now before you try to make some stupid parallel between dynamic ip
addresses and anti-discrimination laws, an IP address does not identify
an individual person or entity or even a 'class' of entities.
> Vice versa with ur living room. The
> same principles apply to mail servers. Sure every admin has the right to
> assert non publicness. But the presumption of publicness remains.
no, it does not. any more than a private residence with a connection
to the public street (i.e. the driveway) creates a presumption of
publicness.
> So when two people with different assumptions collide, it creates a
> problem which spreads out.
yes, and that is why the person with the wrong assumption should make an
effort to correct their mistake.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: