[122889] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (gordon b slater)
Mon Feb 22 22:18:49 2010
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: gordslater@ieee.org
From: gordon b slater <gordslater@ieee.org>
To: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <201002230238.o1N2c4DZ070908@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:18:10 +0000
Reply-To: gordslater@ieee.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 13:38 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <201002230227.o1N2RaDp021692@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 clients.
>
> You can pay for this redirection service if you want it. Usually
> it is time limited and often not fully implemented.
But.... with snail-mail it usually ¬just works¬, uses existing proven
technology, provides a little extra revenue for the carriers, etc etc
etc
I just don't see any of the above happening with _this_ proposal.
Hmm, maybe 'proposal' isn't the correct word for it - by a long way.
I have a feeling it's going to be implemented in the following manner:
./great_idea.sh | bad_plan >> /dev/null
Hey - maybe they should submit an RFC? :)
next up: State of Israel vs. SORBS et al. ding-ding!
Maybe I'm too pessimistic?
Gord
