On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:34:11 -0700
Larry Marks <larry(_dot_)marks(_at_)barberry(_dot_)com> wrote:
J C Lawrence wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 05:12:19 -0700 Larry Marks
<larry(_dot_)marks(_at_)barberry(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
The more ISPs do such a thing, the less value and interest for the
remaining ISPs to do so.
Huh? Why?
You have thought about this haven't you? The greater the percentage of
ISPs in such a confederation, the less value there is for any remaining
ISP to join, as they get all the values created by the group without any
of the costs.
As soon as it becomes legally required its not a code of conduct, its
a state tax and mandate which is to be fought and lowest-bidder
only-the-letter-of-the-law penny-saved wherever possible. Incredibly
shrinking margins and mass market economic forces dictate that
clearly. Across the international scene, naive national self-interest
would encourage foreign systems to Do Their Own Different Thing.
I really didn's say anything about legal requirement in the post to
which you are responding. But even so, what you're saying is total
nonsense. It works for the PSTN.
Actually it doesn't. It may work for the PSTN within the bounds of the
USA -- which is effectively one organisational entity, but it doesn't
necessarily work for the PSTN as soon as you cross International borders
and start dealing with the other, remote, largely uncontracted and
uninvolved services. Been there, done that.
To a large extent each ISP and each MTA operator (in the organisational
sense) is analagous to a an independent liassez faire PSTN, and just to
make things richer than they are for the PSTN world, there are millions
of MTA operators instead of the small order hundreds of PSTN
organisations.
Your comment is preposterous.
Sorry. Reality is often preposterous. It also happens to be true.
You, and even I may prefer it otherwise, but at the end of the day
that is the way current networks operator and what happens.
Yes. It is the way they operate and it's incredibly stupid and I'm not
going to take it anymore.
Congratulations, and that is what we are here for. I would suggest
however that your current choice of target is a windmill.
Nonsense. If you have not made efforts to establish bilateral
agreements with other ISPs, then you haven't used best practices for
the telecommunications industry.
You might notice that ISPs are not a telecommunications service
industry. Even in the PSTN world those things are frequently not
present and rarely to never guaranteed. Try calling the third world
some time, or even large chunks or rural Europe.
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.
Actually, you don't have every expectation of great care. You have a
reasonable expectation that just enough care will be taken as is
justified by the revenue opportunity you represent and not a single iota
more. In fact, you can safely assume than slightly less effort will be
expended than the revenue opportunity you represent as service providers
know the "Good Enough Is Best" trade-offs very well. If the revenue
opportunity you represent is small, well, your mail will be treated
quite lackadaisically.
Hang on, you seem to think it is. There's those market forces again.
This is generally true, and, in the general case, email works very
well in supporting these expectations.
Does that mean that I should be able to sue if someone doesn't take
great care?
Sure! Do you have a violated contract?
Finally, you said, "you get to pick". Actually, you don't.
Nope. You do, its just that the cost of making that choice is high.
In fact, people make that choice daily. As a trite example: Car
dealers that want to work with Freightliner must install a private T1
from their dealer to Freightliner (required by Freightliner) before
they can do electronic business with Freightliner.
Excessive cost is a barrier for most users. This does not constitute a
choice.
Absolute;y it is a choice, its just a more expensive choice than they
are willing to pay. It remains a choice however. I make the same
choice every day in not buying a Ferrari, and not driving at 150mph on
the road outside my house.
Attempting to enforce contract agreement end-to-end in the abstract
and general case is infeasible in the general case (tho very possible
as a custom point-to-point paid-for service). Attempting to
establish full consent for any change in operational characteristics
before making changes is ludicrous -- How many other ISPs across the
planet would I have to get to sign off?
Well then, I guess the bumblebee can't fly and the PSTN can't possibly
operate.
The PSTN is a poor analogy for Internet mail systems. A better pick for
an analogy is probably postal services, and relatively, the utter lack
of delivery guarantees they provide. Of course value added services
like FedEx, DHL, etc exist which provide end-to-end guarantees as well
as tracking oversight, but those are value added services which charge a
significant premium.
There may be a lesson to be learned there.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg