Outgoing SMTP Servers

Fri Oct 28 19:54:10 UTC 2011

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:16, Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

> Owen,
> 
> When you stretch an analogy this thin, it always falls apart. I was referring to the poison/pollution not the water/air. A drought/vacuum* would not be possible, but would you want the poisoned water/air?
> 
I can tolerate a lot of spam if my legitimate messages get through. I have zero tolerance for blocking my legitimate traffic in the name of stopping pollution. I oppose the death penalty on the same basis. 

Owen

> This analogy is bad enough without the nits picked out. I actually mixed two posts to create a stream analogy out of an air analogy.
> 
> I will not go any further and all further follows on to this analogy should be ignored. :)
> 
> - Brian J.
> 
> * a lack of air (for a reasonable deffinition of air) would be a vacuum... right?
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:11 PM
>> To: Brian Johnson
>> Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
>> 
>>> 
>>>>> Nor is the data transiting these networks a commons. The air over my
>>>>> land is a commons. I don't control it. If I pollute it or if I don't,
>>>>> it promptly travels over someone else's land.
>>>> 
>>>> If you choose to pollute the air heavily, the value of the air drops for
>>>> everybody.
>>>> If you choose to pollute the Net heavily, the value of the Net drops for
>>>> everybody.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> STRIKE 3! Oops got ahead of myself.
>>> 
>>> I'm attempting to prevent the pollution but I may capture a little good water
>> (almost nothing) along the way. To say that this is a way of "bad acting" and
>> causes a loss of value to the Internet as a whole is pure folly.
>>> 
>> 
>> No, it really isn't. Because the good water that you are catching is actually
>> causing
>> a drought downstream.
>> 
>> Owen
> 