RE: IP ---> e-mail

John W. Osborne (josborne@magna.com.au)
Tue, 4 Jun 1996 19:59:59 +-1000


Hmmm..........
----------
From: elliot smith[SMTP:smithe@minot.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 June 1996 12:15
To: CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
Subject: IP ---> e-mail

some people have showed interest on how to put an e-mail address to
an IP so here is a more detailed explanation.

Let's say you see my IP on cu-see-me. right now it's 205.218.4.34.
(Every time I connect to my ISP I get a different IP)

Some ISPs do not run finger. I think ISPs should be required to run
finger because we don't need people messing up the 'net anonymously.

<snip>

Elliot....I could not disagree more. Requiring ISP's to run a finger server is
akin to forcing you to wear a sign on your back, with your home street address
every time you venture out into public to talk with someone. Or, if you don't
like that analogy, how about having to to give -your- home address and telephone
number to directory assistance, or anyone else you call?

Just because I write a letter to the editor in my local newspaper (eg., a newsgroup)
doesn't entitle people to come to my front door (my electronic mailbox) to harass me.
Deciding to give out a personal detail is -my- choice. Not yours, and not my
phone company's nor my provider's.

Your suggestion of about requiring ISP's to run a finger server is a 'cure' far
worse than the malady it is meant to address. There -is- room for anonominity
-everywhere-, Internet included. Just because some people do things that
-you don't like- (note, we have never established any harm that has been done to
anyone) certainly does not require their provider to furnish the subscriber's name,
rank, and serial number.

As to the nudity issue...*snore*....it is largely an American thing, the objections,
that is. Americans are still very uptight about seeing someone's (or their own) "grisly bits".
I have raised my daughters better. They know what all the parts looks like, what
they do, how to use them, and have no interest in seeking it out on the net, and if
presented to them, via, say, a "flasher", would burst out laughing rather than be
permanently harmed, as so many neo-Fascist-let's-police-ourselves
apologists would suggest.

The "police ourselves" rhetoric is just a smokescreen for a smaller group of people to
impose its will (read...'set guidelines') for the larger. While I dislike government
intrusion enormously, at least those critters are elected.

John