From: “Ross Wright” <rwright@adnetsol.com>
To: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer <kent@songbird.com>
Message Hash: 67536559e8d187f28f4f05259aa89997070e3872dd791efa7b8ae5eb9e49aedb
Message ID: <199705250802.BAA27333@adnetsol.adnetsol.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-25 08:15:35 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 16:15:35 +0800
From: "Ross Wright" <rwright@adnetsol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 16:15:35 +0800
To: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer <kent@songbird.com>
Subject: Re: SIGH Geiger clueless again
Message-ID: <199705250802.BAA27333@adnetsol.adnetsol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On or About 24 May 97 at 22:42, Kent Crispin wrote:
> This is the conundrum of spam. It exploits a fundamental weakness
> in our communication protocols, and illustrates a fundamental
> philosophical problem in the realm of freedom of speech through a
> finite bandwidth communication channel -- what happens when someone
> uses their freedom of speech to overload the channel, thus
> interfering with everyone else's freedom of speech? (An information
> theoretic "tragedy of the commons".)
>
> Clearly, it seems to me, freedom of speech should not include the
> freedom to destroy others freedom of speech by overloading the
> channel.
There we go, full circle to what started this whole thread. And
quite well put. Seems as if EVERYONE is really clueless about this
one, not just WHG3.
> But to avoid this problem you need protocols that govern
> access to the channel...protocols which do not exist for email.
And we don't want those. I think. 1 am on a Saturday, and it's
really confusing. As long as I get to keep doing what it is I'm
doing, I'm happy.
=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ross Wright
King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services
http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia
Voice: (408) 259-2795
Return to May 1997
Return to ““Ross Wright” <rwright@adnetsol.com>”
1997-05-25 (Sun, 25 May 1997 16:15:35 +0800) - Re: SIGH Geiger clueless again - “Ross Wright” <rwright@adnetsol.com>