From: "Spencer Dawkins"
I like the idea, and your draft is more than a skeleton plus examples.
quite true.
...
- The client/server orientation doesn't explicitly handle peer-to-peer
connectivity (unless all the SIP clients have to be servers so they
can receive incoming phone calls). Saying "I want incoming phone
calls" is different from saying "I'm running my own mail server".
So you say now, but wait until the ROKSO spammers discover the bonaza
in VoIP. Instead of "owned" proxies pumping email, they'll use the
same boxes to push pre-recorded voice messages.
For mail, the filtering at issue here has not been against incoming mail
to local SMTP servers but outgoing mail from local SMTP clients.
An ISP might want to filter against incoming port 80 so customers can't
use lots of the ISP's bandwidth on their HTTP servers, but against
outgoing port 25 to minimize the ISP's abuse handling costs.
The DUL DNS blacklist filtering that non-spammers whine about would
be that if it existed but currently is entirely at third party ISPs
and mail targets. It is entirely orthogonal to and independent of the
filtering John wrote about. It is a reaction to the lack of filtering
done by the low priced ISPs.
Of course, none of those words belong in John's document.
Of course, I'm not serious about VoIP spam. To start, the bandwidth
needed for 10,000,000 5KByte spam is less than the bandwidth needed
for 10,000,000 60 second phone calls.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com