> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > --On Monday, 05 March, 2007 09:15 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > While I have disagreed with many of the other things Phillip > has said in this thread, I am in complete agreement with this > one and taken much the same position for some time. Indeed, > I have long suspected that the highest-leverage remedy for > many spam and malware issues would start with considering > ISPs who supply SOHO and, even more important, residential, > connections without supplying or requiring such firewalls at > the boundary to be liable for the damage that results. Quite, the technical part of my proposal is essentially a generalization of the emergent principle of port 25 blocking. While people were doing this before SUBMIT was proposed the SUBMIT proposal made it possible to do so without negative impact on legitimate users. How do we establish the political coalition necessary to act? There is clearly additional discussion necessary within the IETF community to achieve a measure of consensus. I agree that the IETF list is not the place for that. We need more than just consensus in the IETF though. We need to convince the ISPs to act who in turn must persuade the vendors of SOHO routers. The ISPs have leverage, they write RFPs. The ISPs and others discuss this type of issue in forums such as MAAWG. The institutional issue is how to present an IETF consensus to such fora. This need does not seem to be anticipated in the IETF constitution. The body with the closest mandate would appear to be the IAB. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf