-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I want to tell you what Stephen van Egmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said
about "Re: [crypto-canada] Fwd: Re: Might " on 23 May 2001, at 10:30
> People who are afraid Sympatico is trying to help the spooks trace
> their mail really have their head in the wrong place.
Maybe today. Maybe tomorrow. But it's one of those (potentially)
incrementally, nefarious things. Imagine that the next thing they
want to do is filter out your incoming spam. Good for them, you say.
Next they want to filter out pornography. Good for them, you say.
Next, hate mail or mail intended to incite hate. Good for them, you
say. Where does it stop? At some point, they'll cross the threshold
between providing a valuable service and interfering with your
ability to send and receive the e-mail you want. For me, that
threshold is crossed the moment they select my mail server for me.
I want to purchase Internet connectivity from my service provider. I
want to decide, independently, where I get my mail service, news
service, web proxy service, and anything else. The trouble is that
there are so few providers of high-speed Internet connectivity
available, and both of them force the bundled application services on
their customers as well. Up to now I had the choice of ignoring
those services (even though I had to pay for them), but with this
latest "policy" a Sympatico client is forced to use the Sympatico
mail service, and worse, is being denied the ability to use another
service provider's mail service.
> Just as with the "no running servers on our network" policy, or "no
> support for Linux" policy, this is a stick for them to hit you with if
> you become a problem. Why, besides dissatisfaction with their
> service, and perhaps telecommuting, would you use a different SMTP
> port? Probably to make someone's life somewhere difficult, whether
> through spam or [D]DoS.
And maybe not. Maybe there is some other value-added service (like
retraction, status tracking, anonymity, encryption &c.) provided by
alternative mail service providers that I want to use.
Also, I don't think it's only a matter of trying to send SMTP mail on
a different port, it's blocking all other SMTP services on port 25...
> What would make the policy real, rather than a stick to whack people
> with if they become troublemakers, is if they shut off outgoing port
> 25 at their NAPs. Then, maybe, you might say they're serious.
It seems to me that is exactly what is being proposed.
> > There's lots of issues that cypherpunks and cybercitizens ought to
> > raise awareness and fight for but is the right to use any SMTP
> > server really that important?
>
> No, it's not.
Yes it is.
Analogies in this business abound, and the closest I can come up with
is the CRTC forcing Canadians to watch only Cancon-branded cable
channels, even though the technical means exist for Canadians to view
the US Discovery Channel, Bravo channel, &c. Canadians are a
complacent lot, with a (possibly misplaced) trust in their government
to do the right thing for them. Well, here's yet another case of
someone else making your decisions for you...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61c
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability
iQCVAwUBOw3Y1KLoCveuM+mJAQHyKQQA21OeOjvcjFGKFXa40gNEgRDfa9hvFpuu
SPFMP+elF4WuqArRjq5KhLOcZwy1ZSkVxa1LMQaAQR60dyA7KriVBhrLr+/LyPMJ
rACdOoRoFTatbOGLoj172CBQCKvIefPtjA9m+Jm11BJETSUjE3RMZc3dC/yOAcNv
P2linuxZp5g=
=6HEH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
=====
Bob Jonkman Voice: +1-519-669-0388
SOBAC Microcomputer Services E-Fax: +1-603-308-6118
6 James Street mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elmira Ontario N3B 1L5 Canada
Networking -- Office & Business Automation -- Consulting
RSA Fingerprint: 9FAF A6AC B567 BC10 8973 7CF0 CB27 0317
RSA ID: 0xAE33E989 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=send_key
Web site temporarily at http://24.42.38.77/index.htm
