Hi - > From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@xxxxxxx> > Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:23 AM > Subject: Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address blacklists... ... > Really: If there is a larger issue that the IETF can and should tackle, then > let's talk about it. But I'm still not seeing how the thread you started qualifies. ... The problem is a mis-match between the protocol model (and the points for spam blocking it affords) and the economics of actual use. The debate about sender-vs-recipient responsibility for dealing with false positives misses the point that the party usually responsible for the blocking is under the control of neither the sender nor the recipient. I've spent enough time on hold to far-away lands to be skeptical of claims that ISPs are really that interested in resolving false positives, but I recognize that the experience of individual users isn't considered valid data. Ted's core point seems to be that that the "delivery value" economic argument does not always align with the "sender assumes responsibility for out-of-band-delivery when blocked" model, particularly when the cost of out-of-band delivery is far greater than the value of delivery to the sender, no matter how badly the intended recipient who requested the information might want it. By looking only at the SMPT protocol exchange, rather than the next-layer-up request-for-info followed by response, the real use case is distorted. Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf