Re: spoofing email addresses

Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Sun, 30 May 2004 10:04:50 -0400

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf