In message <3ED5477D.5020004@cisco.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)