In message <3ED5477D(_dot_)5020004(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>, Eliot Lear writes:
Tony Hain wrote:
The IETF needs to recognize that the ISPs don't really have a good
alternative, and work on providing one. If they have an alternative and
continue down the path, you are right there is not much the IETF can do.
At the same time, market forces will fix that when customers move to the
ISP that implements the alternative.
This is very well said. That first sentence could arguably be the credo
of the IETF, only perhaps not limiting to ISPs.
Yes. Normally, I'd worry a lot about backwards compatibility. In this
case, I think the problems for ISPs -- and users -- are so severe that
people will switch *rapidly* to a new protocol if it solved most of the
spam problem.
My new concern is making sure that we get a *good* solution -- one that
preserves privacy and the end-to-end principle, as well as blocking
spam.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)