Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
LarrySheldon at cox.net
Mon Feb 22 10:30:53 CST 2010
On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
>> Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
> While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
I dare say.
I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to
work for another company and writes email from george at example.com that
injures my reputation.
Not a good plan at all.
> 1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between
> Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been
Believe it or not, some people have email addresses that are not
intrinsically "ISP" addresses.
> 2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address
> they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a
> business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant
> operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying
> you is the real owner of the address, for example?
Again, it might all be within one ISP--and is still irrelevant.
> IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email
> for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make
> relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
Governments requiring people to do things that are not good ideas often
have unexpected (even if obvious) consequences.
My reaction, if I were in a position to do so, would be to stop
providing email addresses.
> Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's
> report here.
Why is that relevant?
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
More information about the NANOG