This is a followup to one particular section:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 07:42:03PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
3.6. Use of Collateral Damage MUST Be Disclosed
There's no such thing as collateral damage. I'm going to write
a separate message about that because it's too long to include here.
This phrase should be excised from this document. There's no such
thing as "collateral damage" because there's no such thing as
"damage" in this context.
Consider: if you knock on my door and request entry to my home, and I
decline, have I "damaged" you? No: I have merely declined to extend a
privilege to you.
If you call me, and I do not answer or return your call, or if you send
me a letter, but I do not open it, have I "damaged" you? No: again,
I've simply declined to extend a privilege -- in this case, the courtesy
of my time and attention.
If you issue an HTTP request to a server I operate, and you are not given
the page you request, but an error message indicating that you're not
authorized to access that page, have I damaged you? Once again, no,
you've simply not been extended a privilege.
Such privileges are mine to grant and deny at my option -- for any reason,
or for no reason at all other than my personal whim. I may grant them
in full or part, and I may deny them in full or part. (And I can grant
them or deny them based on a DNSBL or RHSBL listing if I so choose.)
The same may be said by any operator of any service (HTTP, FTP, SMTP,
etc.) anywhere on the Internet. Only someone with an inflated sense
of entitlement would make the claim that they were somehow "damaged"
merely because they weren't granted a privilege.
Similarly, requests for the privilege of SMTP services may be granted or
denied at the pleasure of those providing those services. If any given
mail system chooses to deny all traffic from hosts whose last IP octet is
a prime number, or from all domains containing the letter "j", or from any
which connect between 1:17 and 2:43 PM, that site is perfectly free to do
so -- and such a decision does not inflict any kind of "damage" on anyone.
Similarly, if any given DNSBL or RHSBL wishes to publish those policies
and implement them, it's free to do so.
I deliberately chose some absurd policy examples to make the point:
of course I wouldn't recommend these particular ones. But I chose
those ridiculous policies to emphasize that a site furnishing services
(like SMTP) is the sole and final arbiter of the terms and conditions
under which it will do so, and if that site chooses to implement these
or some considerably less far-fetched policies, whatever those policies
are, they don't cause any "damage". They merely grant/deny a privilege,
as the case may be.
Since those requesting services are never entitled to those privileges,
they can never claim that they are "damaged" if their request is denied.
They might (variously) be upset, disappointed or even surprised
(especially if someone is using the prime number policy, any sane
person would use the Fibonacci sequence) but they're not damaged.
---Rsk
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg