> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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. Grocery stores frequently requires shirts and shoes. A better analogy is that grocery stores that sell alcohol or other regulated drugs are required to pay substantial extra costs. Complaints about monopolies in the beer and wine trade are laughed at, as are demands that pharmacies in grocery stores not charge prices high enough to pay their pharmacists. As Mr. Borenstein knows, a substantial fraction and probably most spam is current sent using $30/month consumer accounts. The spam that is not sent using such accounts is very easily blocked. As he knows, if providers of those services would either filter port 25 or terminate customers running trojan zombies, that spam would stop. Providers of those $30/month accounts have made clear that they cannot afford to hire the people to monitor and deal with their abusive customers. That is why many of the providers of those $30/month accounts submit their own IP address blocks to various "dynamic" backlists or block port 25 themselves. Stopping trojan zombies would not end the spam problem, but it would be a major improvement. You can see the truth of that in the results of UUNet's imposition of port 25 filtering on its dial-up resellers. It would also significantly improve security problems caused by Microsoft systems, because viruses and worms could be filtered by ISP SMTP servers from outgoing mail. > 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. -- It is dishonest to imply that cable TV providers have near-monopolistic market positions in providing Internet service. They often have near or true monopolies in providing cable TV service. However, in no U.S. market do cable TV providers have anything like monopolies in providing Internet service. They may have monopolies in providing some of services at $30/month, including "Web connectivity," "Client only, non-public address," and "Client only, public address." Mr. Borenstein can buy Full Internet Connectivity from many service providers, although not at $30/month. Mr. Borenstein and others like him expect the rest of us to subsidize their $30/month connectivity by dealing with the network abuse of his fellow customers, because they find $30/month comfortable. That position would be less despicable if they would demand free Internet connectivity, since that is the only price that billions of other people can afford. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf