Hoi Alan,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:58:21AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote:
We cannot start blocking ports as we like. We can't even block spamming
hosts on our customer mailstores - unless they serverly damage operating
of that mailstores.
Then your AUP and/or contracts need to change.
No. It's just like if you are living in a country like the USA or
Germany or a lot of other states you are free to go wherever you want.
If you fail to adhere to the agreed upon social system you get busted.
It's not that you are put in prison and if you can prove that you can behave
in that room you're allowed to move in a house and after that you can
also use the garden and if you dfo that fine you're allowed to talk to
your neighbors.
Your business model involves saving your customers money by allowing
them to attack me. You then say there's nothing you can do about it,
because the contract *you* wrote & signed with the customer, prevents
you from holding them responsible for their behaviour.
Where did I say that?
I said we have contracts with our customers and I cannot go and start
blocking port 25 on the border routers "just because". We can and we did
pull the plug of abusive/spamming customers or 0wned hosts.
The structure of the Internet is a peering model and it works because of
that. If you don't like it you have to make contracts with everyone you
want to talk to and without a contract none can talk to you. That's a
different model, but it's not the Internet.
See the LMAP discussion paper. The failure to account for *my*
costs means that your business model appears to be profitable, when it
really isn't.
Sorry, but this is a cruel world.
I don't steal and I don't want to pay the extra money that the stores
charge to compensate for stolen goods. So I think nobody should be allowed
into a store where I but things unless he can prove that he will not steal.
Nice try, but our world works on the presumption of innocence and I think
it is good that way.
The problem is that spammers have exactly the same business model,
and we already know it's unethical.
I can't see what is ethical with censorship.
Did I SAY "censorship"? I don't see why you're creating a straw
man.
This is why I put the rant about "free speech" into the first draft
of the LMAP discussion document. Your customers "free speech" is
bullshit when you're forcing *me* to pay for it.
No it is different. I am not saying that everyone should be allowed to
say anything in any way he wants and surely not at 4 a.m. with a speaker
van at 10000 watts.
But with the presumption of innocence each one should be allowed to send
a mail to another person on the internet without some authority blocking
it by default "just because". English is not my mother language so maybe
censorship in English is not the word for what I want to express.
Sorry if this is the case. I don't know if "filter" would be a better
word.
I understand how that's nice, in an ideal world. The problem is
you're confusing "censorship" with "quality control". You're
confusing "censorship" with "self-protection". Your freedom to swing
your fist ends where my face begins. It's not a difficult concept.
There is no way for any mailserver administrator or ISP or router admin
to decide whether a customers mail is "good" or "bad" unless he can read
the email. Reading and controlling each and every email before letting
it pass the border of your IT infrastructure is impossible for anyone/
any business with more than 100 emails a day and 5 people. Even more if
you have to take care about data protection.
So it is useless to block port 25 for everyone "just because".
We have an AUP that forbids to send "bad" mails (whatever that means, in
our case it's including UCE and spam) and we can take actions if a customer
fails to adhere. But unless he fails, he has free and unfiltered access to
the Internet and IMHO this is a good thing.
Preventing your customers from sending forged messages which attack
the network infrastructure isn't censorship. e.g. Most customers
could probably forge ICMP "destination unreachable" messages, for your
routers, web servers, etc., and drop them off of the net.
No, they can't.
Our routers do know which side the addresses may come from.
And what if your customers were forging messages about *me*? Would
your contract prevent you from blocking that traffic, because you give
"uncensored" access to the net?
No. As I said, we can/do/did disconnect customers if they are abusive.
But as each ISP sells connectivity they get connectivity, unfiltered -
unless they are abusive.
I don't understand what the problem is.
Nor do I ;-)
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg