Re: spoofing email addresses

This would be a very interesting philosophical argument if in fact what 
we were discussing was something that could take a significant bite out 
of spam.  In the absence of such an ability, however, the real question 
is whether user accounts should be crippled in the name of spam 
fighting when the crippling *isn't* going to help significantly with 
the spam problem.  And that's not a philosophical debate, just a matter 
of common sense.    Grocery stores probably have the right to require 
their customers to wear formal attire, but if they don't have a good 
reason to do it, they're going to drive away customers no matter what 
the outcome of any philosophical debates.  My expectation is that ISP's 
who implement anti-spam measures that are both intrusive and 
ineffective are going to drive away customers as long as there's a 
better alternative out there, and I'd be inclined to simply let them do 
it unless they're in near-monopolistic market positions.  The latter 
exception is important, however; I'd certainly be upset if my cable 
provider did it, because I don't have any good alternatives.  -- 
Nathaniel
On May 30, 2004, at 9:06 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote:

> > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Nilsson?= <mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org>
> > > block port 25 for all types of IP
> > > service except the one that draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-01.txt 
> > > calls
> > > "Full Internet Connectivity."
> > I have a *very* hard time seeing an IETF document (or discussion on 
> > the
> > list) coming even close to endorsing this blocking malpractice. It 
> > does not
> > scale (forcing people to use central, probably misconfigured, relays, 
> > and
> > it is IMNSHO thorougly bad engineering to try solving L8 problems on 
> > L3/4.
> So say each of you who feel you have a right to pay less than what
> providing full internet connectivity costs.   Full connectivity is
> priced at about $100-$250/month, and plausibly and apparently costs
> less to provide.  The $20-$30/month services provided by the providers
> that cannot afford real abuse desks or local technical support are not
> really Internet service, no matter that you might wish.
>
> What I find really strange thing is the price point chosen for this
> divinely ordained right.  Why is $300-$400/year ok but $200/month is
> a violation of your fundamental human rights?  Why is paying what Full
> Internet Connective costs evil and wrong, but it is ok to pay more
> than the $300/year that people in some parts of the world live on for
> a whole year?
>
> The scaling argument is obvious nonsense.  If having $30/month
> customers use SMTP servers provided by their ISPs did not "scale",
> then it would not "scale" to have those same customers use the
> routers provided by those same ISPs.
>
> If your ISP is incompetent at configuring an SMTP server, then whose
> fault is it that you continue to buy bad service?   Why don't you treat
> your incompetent locl provider of "Client only, non-public address"
> or "Client only, public address" as a provider of those services and
> use them only to connect to a system where you get competent Full
> Internet Connectivity?
>
> If ISPs and their customers were willing to deal with spam, including
> immediately and permanently terminating customers that send any spam,
> regardless of whether they are paid for their efforts (e.g. operators
> of trojan zombies), then there would be no spam problem.
>
> Why should the rest of us subsidize your ISP and your connectivity by
> accepting SMTP/TCP/IP SYNs from your neighbors that are more than 99%
> likely to be spam from trojan zombies that your ISP cannot be bothered
> to terminate?
>
>
> Vernon Schryver    vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf