Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 27 May 2003, Tony Hain wrote:

> S Woodside wrote, RE: spam
> > How about the cost of legitimate emails that get filtered and never
> > read. Not everyone scans the list to check for false positives.

Below is an example for HAVING open relays, as a host on a "residential"
IP can use an open relay for outgoing, and therefore communicate with
aol/roadrunner/etc users.  a minor mod to the config of the MTA and there
you go.

scott


>
> In a major example of false positives, we already have examples of one
> real cost of spam. AOL (as one example of many) has declared ranges of
> IP addresses marked 'residential' as invalid for running a particular
> application. In this case SMTP, but which app is next? There is a 'guilt
> by association' presumption here by the operations community, which when
> carried into other applications results in substantially limited value
> in the core IP protocol.
>
> With this type of policy, the operations community is dictating which
> applications can be run from specific ranges of IP addresses. This would
> be comparable to the phone companies dictating that modems couldn't be
> used from phone numbers that were allocated for voice use. Clearly the
> operations community is fighting back with the limited tool set they
> have, but they are setting a very dangerous precedent in the process.
>
> While the IETF can't dictate operational process, it must defend the
> open and free use of its core protocol. Part of that defense means
> finding architecturally viable alternatives to the evolving operational
> hacks. One approach would be to undeniably associate an IP address with
> a person, so existing legal recourse would be simplified. Privacy
> advocates would take issue with that approach, so another would be to
> encode the exact location of the source in the address, and use strict
> RPF to enforce it. Location coupled with time would provide the legal
> system with needed evidence, without compromising personal privacy.
> There are likely other options, and issues to discuss, but we should not
> just push this out as 'hard so it must be research'. The open utility of
> IP is at stake here.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]