Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

The suggestion to own your own domain name coupled with some consumer protection against practices which resist transferring domain names to a new provider solves this problem well enough. Maybe that's even what's slipping thru the cracks of these 10 second mechanical google translations? --

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Johnny Eriksson wrote: > Robert Bonomi wrote: > >> Quick! Somebody propose a snail-mail portability bill. When a renter >> changes to a different landlord, his snail-mail address will be optionally >> his to take along, "just like" what is proposed for ISP clients. > > No, a complete street

Re: Kill this thread: Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/23/2010 10:54 AM, John Sage wrote: Unquote I'd want to trade my email address for one that doesn't trigger empty responses. Or get me banned. But he's right, we should take the discussion of operational issues somewhere else. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

> If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo, > where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits > were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions. The Soviet Union was not quite as chaotic as that, but they also didn't keep an organized sy

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

--On 23 February 2010 09:06 -0600 Larry Sheldon wrote: No kidding--something like making airlines do something railroads can do. I guess that depends whether you are talking about issuing flexible tickets or cruising at zero feet. -- Rob.

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/23/2010 8:44 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Simple: you separate 'mail' addresses from 'fire' addresses. Mail addresses are identifiers. Fire addresses are locators. wrong approach. simply get fire engines to have heat sensors and set their gps accordingly. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenbur

Kill this thread: Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Larry Sheldon wrote: On 2/23/2010 4:43 AM, Cian Brennan wrote: As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the I

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:32:45AM -0600, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 2/23/2010 4:43 AM, Cian Brennan wrote: > > > As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. > > Simply > > force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow > > them > > to still a

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

When in Tokyo, always have a MAP showing where you want to go. On Feb 23, 2010, at 11:34 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote: Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600): On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Feb 23, 2010, at 8:34 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote: > Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600): >> On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: >> >>> Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they >>> can't understand. Email addresses aren't phon

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

N. Yaakov Ziskind allegedly wrote on 02/23/2010 11:34 EST: > Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600): >> On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: >> >>> Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they >>> can't understand. Email addresses aren't ph

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600): > On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > > > Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they > > can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers. > > It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/23/2010 4:43 AM, Cian Brennan wrote: > As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply > force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them > to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the ISP > hosts) over p

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 12:02 PM, Joel Esler wrote: I have an idea. Everyone just get a gmail (or otherwise "neutral" account) like me.com or gmail.com or yahoo.com and be done with it. J Sure and give all that information to data mining companies with no interest in privacy. No thank you. I ha

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 09:34 -0500, Jeff Kell wrote: > Well, clearly, the planet just needs to join Active Directory, and the > user convert to Outlook, and use the Global Address List, and... > Ahem! If they (M$) were to go back to the LDAP specs, they could save a lot of time. They could even

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they > can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers. It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives get so excited about "minor, trivial" erosions

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 10:53 +, Leigh Porter wrote: > > Just wait till customers start wanting to take their IP address with > them when they move... Oh wow, I think I've still got a log (somewhere) of all the dialup IPs I was assigned during the early 90s. Since I might be able to claim them

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 11:20 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 2/22/2010 8:42 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: >> When Somebody calls one of my "portable" telephone numbers, they don't >> get a message telling them they have to call some other number. The get >> call progress tones. > > > You are confusing what

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/23/2010 1:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > Figuring out how such a solution would work with email is left as an exercise > for the reader. > Well, clearly, the planet just needs to join Active Directory, and the user convert to Outlook, and use the Global Address List, and... [Sorry, I h

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

[* Is trimming included text a lost art nowadays? *] On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:43:23+ Cian Brennan wrote: > > Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they > > can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers. > > > As has been pointed out several times, they can

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/23/10 1:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: ... And who runs this database? Local number portability requires a new database, one that didn't exist before, It's run by a neutral party and maps any phone number to a carrier and endpoint identifier. (In the US, that database is currently run by

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

> Just wait till customers start wanting to take their IP address with > them when they move... > > When that happens, I hope there will be a new generation of suckers to > fix it. There is PI space, you know ;) -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 23/02/10 09:40, Johnny Eriksson wrote: Robert Bonomi wrote: Quick! Somebody propose a snail-mail portability bill. When a renter changes to a different landlord, his snail-mail address will be optionally his to take along, "just like" what is proposed for ISP clients. No, a com

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 05:39:53AM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:25:42 -0500 > Steven Bellovin wrote: > > Figuring out how such a solution would work with email is left as an > > exercise for the reader. > > OK, let me give it a shot. > > How about if we allow anyone t

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:25:42 -0500 Steven Bellovin wrote: > Figuring out how such a solution would work with email is left as an exercise > for the reader. OK, let me give it a shot. How about if we allow anyone to buy a domain name of their own and then hire someone (e.g. their ISP) to manage

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/10 7:28 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote: The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament. While many users own a free email a

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Robert Bonomi wrote: > Quick! Somebody propose a snail-mail portability bill. When a renter > changes to a different landlord, his snail-mail address will be optionally > his to take along, "just like" what is proposed for ISP clients. No, a complete street address portability system. Assumi

RE: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

> -Original Message- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:55 AM > To: John Levine > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee > > > > >My initial reaction: Does t

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

> >My initial reaction: Does the law in any way imply this mail address > >has to be provided for free? > > If you had spent 10 seconds with Google Translate on the URL in Gadi's > message, you'd already know. (gosh that only took 12 hours to suggest) Obviously we're discussing a legal and

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:08:54AM -0500, James Jones wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Gadi Evron wrote: > > According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a different ISP > > the email address will optionally be his to take along, "just like" mobile > > providers do today w

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:06 AM, gordon b slater wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 21:20 -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes >> something >> that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least >> tolerably - >> viable in

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 21:20 -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: > In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes > something > that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least > tolerably - > viable in the email infrastructure. Unfortunately, the details of the >

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 8:42 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: When Somebody calls one of my "portable" telephone numbers, they don't get a message telling them they have to call some other number. The get call progress tones. You are confusing what is presented to the end-user with what might be going on wit

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

>Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's >report here. Google Translate is your friend. Yes, even on MS Word documents written in Hebrew. R's, John

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

>My initial reaction: Does the law in any way imply this mail address >has to be provided for free? If you had spent 10 seconds with Google Translate on the URL in Gadi's message, you'd already know. R's, John

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 10:38 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article you write: >> s...@cs.columbia.edu: >>> I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the >> email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. >> >> We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. B

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

In article you write: >s...@cs.columbia.edu: >> I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the >email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. > >We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But because the >response text is free-form there's n

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 13:38 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <201002230227.o1n2radp021...@mail.r-bonomi.com>, Robert Bonomi > write > s: > > Quick! Somebody propose a snail-mail portability bill. When a renter > > changes to a different landlord, his snail-mail address will be optionally

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

In message <201002230227.o1n2radp021...@mail.r-bonomi.com>, Robert Bonomi write s: > Quick! Somebody propose a snail-mail portability bill. When a renter > changes to a different landlord, his snail-mail address will be optionally > his to take along, "just like" what is proposed for ISP clien

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:35:10 CST, James Hess said: > Resolving the destination address is what DNS is for, not what SMTP > routing is for. You think the situation is bad now, imagine if the X.400 ADMD= and PRMD= had caught on. ;) pgpR6neOmBgus.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Mon Feb 22 09:10:55 > 2010 > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:09:45 +0200 > From: Gadi Evron > To: NANOG Operators Group > Subject: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee > > The email portability bill has j

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jeff Kell wrote: > There's no way to do this without some underlying forwarding...  and Forwarding SMTP traffic consumes major bandwidth resources (potentially), as the number of 'ports' eventually increases, and seems like a juicy target for many different types

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Per the followup comments on this, the domain owner might be able to do some things in domain name usage and IP Address assignment to mitigate this, the initial and on-going costs of getting this right and the likelihood of eliminating all

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Dude, think to the future -- /128s! On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote: > >> I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number >> Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to >> escape with

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote: > >> I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number >> Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to >> escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months. >> >> Alas, such was not the

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Steven Bellovin: > >> Right; I was not seriously suggesting that the DNS was the right >> spot for it. I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- >> perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth >> considering

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote: I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months. Alas, such was not their fate :) I would watch out for this

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:02:38 GMT, Michael Dillon said: > > Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's > > report here. > > Why on earth would you trust Gadi when you could trust me and some > acquaintances at Google? >

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 1:16 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote: > s...@cs.columbia.edu: >> I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email >> equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. > > We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But beca

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

s...@cs.columbia.edu: > I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email > equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But because the response text is free-form there's no way to reliably parse ou

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps > the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. > Then, of course, there's problem of upgrading the $\aleph_0$ mail > senders out there to comply... See the 251 an

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

I have an idea. Everyone just get a gmail (or otherwise "neutral" account) like me.com or gmail.com or yahoo.com and be done with it. J On Feb 22, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > A thing being missed here is this: > > A telephone number does not have an obvious affinity with persona

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

> Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's > report here. Why on earth would you trust Gadi when you could trust me and some acquaintances at Google?

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

* Steven Bellovin: > Right; I was not seriously suggesting that the DNS was the right > spot for it. I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- > perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth > considering. Then, of course, there's problem of upgrading the > $\alep

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 12:42 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:24:09 CST, Larry Sheldon said: > >> You don't note when you are taking somebody's word when they write in >> English. > > Actually, we do. > > So tell me Larry - if I cited a Latvian web page, and gave a summary, woul

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Steven Bellovin: > >> Bring back the MB or MR DNS records? (Only half a smiley.) > > Eh, you don't want to put this information into a public database. > Officially, for privacy reasons. Unofficially, to create a barrier to > market entry

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 9:29 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Am I missing something? All the ISP has to do is to provision a pop3 / imap / webmail mailbox for that user and keep it around. As a permanent requirement for all accounts, including changes as the user moves around -- long-term churn is 1

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 12:34 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > That said, what does occur to me is what happens when we've closed > someone's account for email abuse (e.g., a spammer)? I've been thinking about that issue--spammer drop-boxes. But we are not supposed to talk about spammers here so I was going to tak

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:24:09 CST, Larry Sheldon said: > You don't note when you are taking somebody's word when they write in > English. Actually, we do. So tell me Larry - if I cited a Latvian web page, and gave a summary, would you feel comfortable blindly passing it along without mentioning t

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

* Steven Bellovin: > Bring back the MB or MR DNS records? (Only half a smiley.) Eh, you don't want to put this information into a public database. Officially, for privacy reasons. Unofficially, to create a barrier to market entry.

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

My initial reaction: Does the law in any way imply this mail address has to be provided for free? If not then I don't see any real problem on the surface. It just means we have to offer the opportunity to keep the mail address functioning for a fee. That said, what does occur to me is what happe

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/10 12:28 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote: ... It'd be an interesting twist if contracts between e-mail providers outside Israel and ISPs inside suddenly made this requirement for e-mail address portability leak beyond Israel's borders. Off-list I aske

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Larry Sheldon wrote: Believe it or not, some people have email addresses that are not intrinsically "ISP" addresses. Indeed. I'm sure pretty much everyone here know why ISPs offer email services. My reaction, if I were in a position to do so, would be to stop providin

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 11:29 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Am I missing something? All the ISP has to do is to provision a pop3 > / imap / webmail mailbox for that user and keep it around. And provide storage, support, .., mail-bomb cleanup. Whose TOS applies? -- "Government big enough to supp

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote: > The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee > for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of > the Israeli parliament. > > While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still m

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 11:28 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote: > >> The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's >> committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full >> legislation process of the Israeli parliament. >> >> While many users

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote: I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months. I'm sure they would :) I know very little of the workings o

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 11:22 AM, Mustafa Golam - wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > > >> >> An email address that ends in example.com irrevocably ties the address >> user to the company Example and may in fact be affirmatively harmful >> beyond the technical difficulty of imp

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Am I missing something? All the ISP has to do is to provision a pop3 / imap / webmail mailbox for that user and keep it around. On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > There are huge differences in LNP/WLNP vs. Email Address portability. > > Prior to LNP/WLNP, there was already SS

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 11:19 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:30:53 CST, Larry Sheldon said: > >>> Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's >>> report here. >> >> Why is that relevant? > > For the same reason that if I cited a link that lead to a p

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > > An email address that ends in example.com irrevocably ties the address > user to the company Example and may in fact be affirmatively harmful > beyond the technical difficulty of implementation. > > IMHO, ISPs would be forged to take Goog

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:30:53 CST, Larry Sheldon said: > > Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's > > report here. > > Why is that relevant? For the same reason that if I cited a link that lead to a page in Latvian, you'd have a hard time double-checking that my

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

A thing being missed here is this: A telephone number does not have an obvious affinity with personal intellectual-property-like information. (402 332- is not obviously a Northwest Bell-USWest-Quest telephone number, but at least two of them are now served by Cox. A person using a 917 NNX-XX

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

There are huge differences in LNP/WLNP vs. Email Address portability. Prior to LNP/WLNP, there was already SS7 which is, essentially a centralized layer of indirection for phone numbers. This was necessary in order to support multiple LECs serving the same NPA-NXX anyway. Once that was in place,

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

> > > I dare say. > > I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to > work for another company and writes email from geo...@example.com that > injures my reputation. > > I suspect we are only talking about email addresses provided as part of a commercial service, not as a

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote: > > > >> Why does this seem like a really bad idea? > > > > While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems: > > I dare say. > > I

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:30:53AM -0600, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote: > > > >> Why does this seem like a really bad idea? > > > > While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems: > > I dare s

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Gadi Evron wrote: > The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's > committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full > legislation process of the Israeli parliament. > > While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use > of their ISP's emai

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote: > >> Why does this seem like a really bad idea? > > While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems: I dare say. I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to w

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

There's no way to do this without some underlying forwarding... and aside from the obvious inefficiencies, bear in mind that any spam mitigation devices on the last hop that decide they are receiving spam are going to direct their wrath (reputation scores, blacklisting, greylisting, rate limiting,

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:24:54PM +, Robert Brockway wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote: > >> Why does this seem like a really bad idea? > > While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems: > > 1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote: > > IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for > a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make > relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address). > > To me that s

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months. Alas, such was not their fate :) I would watch out for this idea, it might actually catch on in various

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Feb 22, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote: > >> Why does this seem like a really bad idea? > > While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems: > > 1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israel

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote: Why does this seem like a really bad idea? While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems: 1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Gadi Evron wrote: > The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's > committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation > process of the Israeli parliament. > > While many users own a free email account, many in Israel s

Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament. While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of their ISP's email service. According to