[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: Formal Attribution of Identity for everyday email sources?Yes please
Thanks, but a reservation.
There cannot be two sets of rules, one for those of us in Dallas and another
for the rest of the world.
1. You say there are no rules in force yet. Therefore, you cannot submit this
instance until those rules have come into force. Yet, you forward something to
PSI, as IP address operator. A clear procedural anomaly, no?
2. what is the nature of the alleged abuse? It could not have been spoofing, as
the email does not match the name of any list subscriber. It cannot have been
spam, as there is no solicitation. It cannot be an offence to write to the list
under an assumed name, as many of the list do that. It cannot be fraud, as Mr
Mueller has yet to represent himself to my lawyers. Unless an offence can be
found, there is no offence.
I repeat my question:
> Where is the Serjeant-at-Arms to provide the appropriate jurisprudence?
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 23:16 17.01.00 +0100, Mark Measday wrote:
> >It looks like someone has set up something to test Harald's new rules,
> >using my, Jeff's and other identities.
> Note: the new rules have not been placed in effect yet.
> > This is not necessarily a bad thing. I think we should have been asked
> > perhaps. Where is the Serjeant-at-Arms to provide the appropriate
> > jurisprudence? Mr Baptista and Mr Williams have already made intelligent
> > private comments concerning this. I suggest that Harald be allowed to get
> > on with it.
> I have already asked the list manager to forward the message with full
> headers to the appropriate abuse address (somewhere @psi.com, I believe).
> [note that I've deleted ncdnhc-application@lyris from the CC list - that
> list is *totally* irrelevant to the further discussion of this topic, not
> being a discussion list]
> Harald A
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway