Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
darcy at druid.net
Tue Feb 23 05:25:42 CST 2010
[* Is trimming included text a lost art nowadays? *]
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:43:23+0000 Cian Brennan
<cian.brennan at redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote:
> > Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they
> > can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
> As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply
Sure, they are sort of like if you squint. Looked at another way they
are kind of like a specific name at a street address. On the other
hand, what email addresses are exactly like is email addresses.
Metaphors are for illustrating something we already know, not for
proving something we don't. Metaphors are like... Umm...
> force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them
As soon as I see the word "force" I know I'm not going to like what
follows. Why force them to use a specific server at all? My clients
use my outgoing server no matter who they connect to. I think what you
meant was that the old ISP should NOT be forced to continue supplying
the outgoing service. That would make sense and requires no law.
> to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the ISP
> hosts) over pop/imap/whatever. It's not free, but given that the average ISP
> seems to give you only a few MB or space, it's hardly going to break the bank.
If someone wants to maintain their old account for a while then what's
stopping them? Cost? That's no excuse for moving the cost to the old
supplier. If your online identity is important to you then pay the
associated costs either with your own domain or by maintaining old
My point is that everything necessary to solve the nominal problem is
already in place. We don't need more laws.
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy at druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
More information about the NANOG