He's not advocating switching to an IMAP-only system ...
He's asking the U.N. to start "...funding projects that fight spam and provide
internet security and educational resources to the public." The rest of the
paper is background and suggestions taken from this thread (and a couple he
came into the project with, re: Microsoft). We can presume that his "masters"
include the almighty dollar and low-hanging fruit.
Oops ... I may be a fsking idiot ... sorry.
Sincerest regards,
James Butler
Chairman, Board of Directors
Internet Society - Los Angeles Chapter
California, USA
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 8/2/06 at 3:51 PM jdow wrote:
>If this is real and not make believe for a class somewhere in school
>then Marc is a VERY dangerous person with an agenda. That agenda seems
>to be to require IMAP. The question becomes "why?"
>
>The answer is easy, remember where IMAP stores your email. This makes
>it VERY easy for the government to dig into your private life without
>invading your home where you generally have some legal protections.
>
>He has been ordered to justify using IMAP instead of SMTP using SPAM
>as an excuse. How else do you explain his irrationality?
>
>This makes him an incredibly dangerous person. It is also a very
>telling argument against transferring management of the Internet to
>the UN. It's scary enough having the US government involved. At least
>the US government is mandating remarkably little with its mostly hands
>off approach towards those managing the Internet. If people like Marc
>end up in control the Internet quickly becomes useless and actively
>dangerous to use. Sadly the UN is further down that dangerous road
>than the US, today. That is, of course, subject to change.
>
>What the Internet needs is as little hands on management as possible
>with as many alternatives as possible. Let the people on the Internet
>evolve the protections, such as SpamAssassin. If other people are
>annoyed by spam then they should pressure for the adoption of these
>filtering practices or adopt them for themselves. Dictating what
>protocols can be used and selecting one that exposes as much private
>data as possible to rather direct government scrutiny is NOT the way
>the Internet should evolve.
>
>{^_^}
