On Jul 9, 2019, at 12:03 PM, John Bambenek <[email protected]> wrote: > I cannot coerce anything. I represent nothing that represents even a > molecule of the network to coerce or enforce anything. I hope incentives > will be created, and those may be purely positive incentives (mails more > likely to be delivered, etc).
This is why I keep asking you for a clear use case. What you are describing here is a real problem. The solution to that problem is not to publish everyone’s private information in a huge public database. > To put your argument in another way, I as someone who protects uses > should NOT have information with which I could potentially reliably > block malicious individuals could be another way to frame your position. > That's a position. Whether or not you should have this information has no bearing on whether it should be in a public database. There are much better ways to solve this problem, which require no privacy violation at all. Just as one example, if I establish mutual trust with everyone I’m corresponding with, then we can set up a mechanism whereby any mail from a source with which trust has not been established can be dropped automatically. This does not require a public database with my personal identifying information. It can probably even be done in such a way that you don’t have a map of who knows whom, although that’s a hard problem. But even if it were done in such a way that it gave you, someone with whom I have a business relationship, private access to my contact graph, that would be much less bad than making all of my personal information public.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
