I'm a little confused so I'll ask whether you agree with the following.
Best effort include attempting to deliver but failing due to congestion.
Worst efforts include deciding a given message must not be delivered and
thwarting your wishes to communicating.
Note that the current open loop email doesn't really scale in the case
of congestion. The problem is in using NAK not ACK but ACK has privacy
implications which makes the problem complicated>
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Alan
DeKok
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 09:57
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1
"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.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg