At 1:14 PM -0600 4/2/03, Eric S. Imsand wrote:
system, similar to SSL, is that the certificates can be revoked.
Instead of asking networks to pay huge sums of money to other
people, why not charge them
ISPs will not (for very legitimate legal reasons in the U.S.) accept
anything that makes them liable for the action of their users. In
order to be positive that 100,000 users couldn't lose their email
access from the actions of one user, they would have to seriously
lock down internet user. They'd have to install servers to block or
monitor any outbound email port. They'd also have to do incoming
blocking of port 80 to make sure that nobody had any open proxies or
other things that could screw them up. Basically, they'd have to put
an incredible amount of effort into stopping any illegitimate
behavior on the part of their users. Currently they are incented to
do that--but they aren't mandated. That means that they can way the
cost/benefit and decide at what point it's okay to just close
someone's account after a few hours rather than try and prevent the
problem from occuring. That's a huge difference.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg