Alan DeKok wrote:
"Chris Lewis" <clewis(_at_)nortelnetworks(_dot_)com> wrote:
Issue #2 also means that the administrator of a receiving network cannot
enforce policy. Think corporations and employment agreements.
I would then say to NOT add my comment as 7a), but instead a new
entry:
n+1) Every network element must be permitted to administer their own
anti-spam policy, irrespective of anyone elses policy or consent.
Some people will object strenuously to this statement, for various
reasons. But the reality is that this is already happening today.
It's called dropping packets when the link gets full.
The network is not reliable. The network does NOT enforce your
wishes to communicate with others. It's best-effort, and your data
may not make it through. We already accept this behaviour, and I
believe that we should make such acceptance explicit for anti-spam
solutions.
Is it really necessary to add this? IETF does not dictate how people
control their resources after all. There are already all kinds of
restrictions on who can access what in what manner and from where. I
believe this will sort itself out, if some ISP (or mail service
provider, or ...) were to impose too onerous terms and conditions users
would just move to another ISP.
//Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg