Assuming it pays for service, and isn't sending spam, I agree. --Dean On Mon, 26 May 2003, shogunx wrote: > 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 > > >