On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:18:51 -0700
Larry Marks <larry(_dot_)marks(_at_)barberry(_dot_)com> wrote:
J C Lawrence wrote:
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:
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.
Uh, yes, I have actually thought this through. You don't get the cert
unless you join and pay. No cert, no value. Use the cert without
joining, you get sued blind. That's not regulation either. It's tort
law.
Uhh, yeah, sure.
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.
Well, actually it does work across most borders, and has for
years. Been there, done that.
Call back woods China. Call outback Australia. Call much of Africa.
Try calling Iraq. Call most of the Pacific islands. Even better, try
placing a collect call (which is essentially what email is). Its not
reliable. You're (somewhat) saved in the PSTN case in that the protocol
requires a fully synchronous connection and email is entirely
asynchronous, but you appear willing to ignore that.
But I don't want a laissez faire PSTN. I want one with rules and order
so I can get my mail through.
Then buy or build one.
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.
You call it tilting at windmills. I call it getting in the face of the
ISPs so that they will do their jobs.
I would note that they don't consider that their job, don't want that
job, and see damned little profit in that job. Their job is being
profitable, not being a common carrier or public service.
There is a difference between things being in bad repair and things
not working because someone is standing in the way making them not
work. There are no guarantees in life. Even the old term, "guarenteed
delivery" only means best effort requiring notification in case of
failure. I thought 821/2821 already provide for that.
They do, very explicitly. DNSRBLs are generally used to bounce/refuse
mail, resulting in the sender receiving a bounce message. Even the use
of RBLs as a BGP feed for null route configuration, at the mail level,
results in a bounce (tho usually after 4 days).
You are asking for guaranteed delivery. Almost nobody involved in the
business actually wants guaranteed delivery, not when they are the
people being delivered to. Even spammers don't want guaranteed delivery
when they are the recipients as recent cases and legal suits have amply
demonstrated.
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.
Just because you are just in it for the money does not release you
from your responsibility to treat my message with great care.
Codswhallop. I have no contract with you. I have no interest in your
mail. I have no particular benefit or value from servicing your mail in
particular. In fact I have no contractual ties with you at all, or even
with your ISP.
BTW: You should really try that line with AOL some time. I expect I'd
be able to hear the laughing from here. (In case you were unaware,
AOL are one of the more famous silent discarders of mail around -- its
nice to be the 800lb gorilla)
Email is but one of the services I offer my users, and in the ROI
structures surrounding those services, I get paid far more readily and
better for getting less mail delivered (spam reduction) than I do in
making absolutely certain that every single possibly "legit" mail is
delivered to my users. Ergo, I spend more time and attention there. If
my customers don't like my allocation of time and attention they will
choose another ISP who does better per their value-set.
Happens every day.
You are assuming a level of social contract and supporting legal
jurisprudence which doesn't exist.
No one made you agree to handle mail traffic. You elected to be in
that business.
Umm, as a point of honesty, I actually run mail systems because it
amuses me to. Its not a big part of what I do -- I don't handle much
more than a few million messages a day and I make no money out of that
end of the game.
You have to provide the service.
Nope. I have to provide the service I promised my users, not remote
senders. I've no contract at all with remote senders outside of RFC
2821, 2822 and similar.
What you have described is just unethical.
Forgive me if I disagree. You assume a level of privilege for mail
across system, organisational, and national borders that I see as, very
literally, so unsupportable and internally inconsistent that it is
ludicrous.
Does that mean that I should be able to sue if someone doesn't take
great care?
Sure! Do you have a violated contract?
Yup. It's called an implied contract and it's enforceable.
I await your first suit.
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.
Give me your money or I'll take it from you. Is that a choice?
Absolutely. The ability to send or receive email is not a natural
entitlement.
I don't want end-to-end guarantees. I don't want special handling. But
I don't want people to interfere with my mail either, as long as it
doesn't violate the law and isn't spam. If it can't be delivered
because of some circumstance beyond control, then fine...
Who sets the law on my network, my systems, in my country?
--
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