ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] A New Plan for No Spam / DNSBLS

2003-04-28 05:12:38
Before replying further in this thread, I would like to make one thing clear. I am not opposed to the use of DNSbls. In fact, I belive they will have an important role to play in the ongoing battle against spam. What I am opposed to is the haphazard, unprofessional, inconsistent, irresponsible and sometimes just plain unethical way in which they are created and used today.

I believe that it is and has been within the power of ISPs to provide a safe haven from spam without introducing instability into the system. They would need to form or affiliate with an NCRPA-compliant body and agree on some consistent and enforceable ways of applying DNSbls and other anti-spam mechanisms. This could start now with existing mechanisms and later add new mechanisms as appropriate.

C Lawrence wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:56:52 -0700
I love your answer! It makes my point so clearly. I certainly didn't
choose the recipient's ISP, so you must be talking about my (the
sender's) ISP. My ISP's server got blocked, so they are doing
something to piss someone off somewhere.

Nope, you've got the direction reversed.

Its parallel to the free speech issue:  You have the freedom to talk,
but nobody is obliged to listen

Preventing people from hearing what I have to say is also a free speech issue, but free speech is neither an appropriate simile nor germaine to the issue. The handling of e-mail is the only issue I have been discussing.

If you have anything important to do, don't do it on the Internet. That's what 
you wanted, isn't it?

Hardly.  Its the old deal: You get what you pay for.  If you want
end-to-end guarantees you have to do and contract it yourself.  If you
want some variety of largely undefined best-effort you'll trust to the
cooperation of other uninvolved parties.  You get to pick.
Your comment is preposterous. A network already exists. I don't need to go build another one. And mail is an end-to-end service and always has been. In fact, it's a commercial service offered to the public.

When I send a message via my ISP to someone on another ISP, it is highly unlikely that it will traverse any systems that are not there to make money for their owners by carrying my traffic. For that reason, I have every right to expect that great care will be taken from one end to the other. Even the term commonly used to describe Internet mail transport, "best effort", creates the expectation of reliable service. That's because "best" means best, not second best or half-assed.

I can't see how it could work any other way. If the Internet is perceived as unreliable, then it will not be used to its potential. That's bad for users and lost profits for ISPs. To some degree, this has already happened. I certainly don't use it for delivery of important business documents and neither do most other people I know. That's regrettable because e-mail should be inherently more reliable than many other forms of communications.

Finally, you said, "you get to pick". Actually, you don't. That's because there is insufficient data for most people to make an informed decision. Buyers deserve to know what the rules and agreements between ISPs for Internet e-mail are and what service providers are fully compliant with them. Then they really can make a choice.

 -LM

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg