> From: "Spencer Dawkins" > I like the idea, and your draft is more than a skeleton plus examples. quite true. > ... > - The client/server orientation doesn't explicitly handle peer-to-peer > connectivity (unless all the SIP clients have to be servers so they > can receive incoming phone calls). Saying "I want incoming phone > calls" is different from saying "I'm running my own mail server". So you say now, but wait until the ROKSO spammers discover the bonaza in VoIP. Instead of "owned" proxies pumping email, they'll use the same boxes to push pre-recorded voice messages. For mail, the filtering at issue here has not been against incoming mail to local SMTP servers but outgoing mail from local SMTP clients. An ISP might want to filter against incoming port 80 so customers can't use lots of the ISP's bandwidth on their HTTP servers, but against outgoing port 25 to minimize the ISP's abuse handling costs. The DUL DNS blacklist filtering that non-spammers whine about would be that if it existed but currently is entirely at third party ISPs and mail targets. It is entirely orthogonal to and independent of the filtering John wrote about. It is a reaction to the lack of filtering done by the low priced ISPs. Of course, none of those words belong in John's document. Of course, I'm not serious about VoIP spam. To start, the bandwidth needed for 10,000,000 5KByte spam is less than the bandwidth needed for 10,000,000 60 second phone calls. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx