On Mi, 21 aug 19, 20:07:36, Brian wrote: > On Wed 21 Aug 2019 at 13:19:32 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > Please ease up! I do not advocate this in general and I made > > the limited use very clear. If a local plumber with 5 employees > > uses this just for his business no freedom of speech or anti > > communication threads are at stake. > > You could probably block also 90% of the US and it would still > > work as expected. > > I educated them about limitations. > > Ease up? Perhaps. > > The "in general" is interesting and informative. Suppose the USPS, Royal > Mail or Deutsche Post etc decided the point of origin or the destination > for a mail was a criterion in their delivery policy? What a world we > would live in then! But the email world gaily goes about deciding who > sends or gets email in the name of spam fighting. The comparison is not quite applicable in my opinion. Considering the situation it's closer to instructing the person responsible for picking up the mail to discard unopened any letter from $COUNTRY, with the implied risk of missing the big opportunity to find a new supplier of super-duper pipes that still come at half price, even after paying import taxes. > The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic addresses. Want > to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? Easy; don't have a static > address. Want to be homeless and send or receive a letter - Royal Mail > will not stop you. Email is a solution which has been turned into a toy > communication system. In principle I agree with you. On the other hand e-mail is also so much easier to abuse (read: minimal cost). Something like Internet Mail 2000[1] might help, though being almost the exact opposite of the usual send-receive (mental) model will probably result in it never being adopted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000 Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature