RE: IP ---> e-mail

The mad Scientist! (
Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:39:07 +1000 (GMT+1000)

On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, John W. Osborne wrote:

>> Hmmm..........
>> ----------
>> From: elliot smith[]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 4 June 1996 12:15
>> To:
>> 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
>> (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?

Not really. I reckon it's more like whether you choose to have your
telephone number listed in the phone book (the default) or unlisted.

> 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.

Knock of the persecution complex. Do you _live_ at ? Do you house your wife and children
there? As has been pointed out on this list already, most email programs
allow you to filter out messages with subjects or from people which you
do not want.

> 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.

Yes there is room for (and even a need for in some cases) anonymity on
the Internet, but I think this does not extend to people exposing
themselves in public places. Do you think that a flasher on a street
corner should be anonymous?

> As to the nudity issue...*snore* is largely an American thing, the objections,
> that is. Americans are still very uptight about seeing someone's (or their own) "grisly bits".

You think Americans are uptight about this? You should see what it is
like in El-Salvador or Saudi Arabia or Japan. I would reckon America has
one of the most casual attitudes about this.

> 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.

Well I believe what others have said, which is that if we do not police
ourselves, the government will step in and censor the Internet, which
_will_ be bad. For nearly everyone.

> John