Subject: RE: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:32:02 -0700

> Tony Hain wrote:
> AOL (as one example of many) has declared ranges of IP addresses
> marked 'residential' as invalid for running a particular application.
> In this case SMTP, but which app is next?

An especially sensitive topic here as most of us operate their own SMTP
server off the home cable or DSL.

> Clearly the operations community is fighting back with the
> limited tool set they have, but they are setting a very
> dangerous precedent in the process.

I agree, but let's not put the blame on the ops. If I had to clean 3
billion pieces of crap every day I would be tempted by using every
possible weapon I have no matter what the IETF geeks think about their
constitutional right to operate a server at home.

> The open utility of IP is at stake here.

Agree.

Michel.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 20:29:20 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Eliot Lear writes:
>Tony Hain wrote:
>> The IETF needs to recognize that the ISPs don't really have a good
>> alternative, and work on providing one. If they have an alternative and
>> continue down the path, you are right there is not much the IETF can do.
>> At the same time, market forces will fix that when customers move to the
>> ISP that implements the alternative.
>
>This is very well said.  That first sentence could arguably be the credo 
>of the IETF, only perhaps not limiting to ISPs.

Yes.  Normally, I'd worry a lot about backwards compatibility.  In this 
case, I think the problems for ISPs -- and users -- are so severe that 
people will switch *rapidly* to a new protocol if it solved most of the 
spam problem.

My new concern is making sure that we get a *good* solution -- one that 
preserves privacy and the end-to-end principle, as well as blocking 
spam.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

---

From: "John Loughney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:41:16 +0000

Elliot,

>           Getting rid of spam is a HUGE benefit.  Heck.  What I've found 
> so amusing is that people seem to upgrade their Microsoft systems just 
> 'cause, with no perceived benefit, but merely protecting from Bit Rot.

Many folks update their MS software (Linux, too) in the hope they will get more stability / more security / more seatures - not becaue of bit rot. Updating mail clients does not seem to be a huge deal - manypeople update their OS / browser when prompted. Majority of my friends & family use a web browser to access private mail. Companies would have interest in upgrading, if it helped also with viruses & security.

John

---

From: "Raghurama 'REDDY'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:16:41 -0400

>> From:	SMTP%"[email-masked]"  "=?UTF-8?Q?John_Loughney?=" 30-MAY-2003 09:37:08.49
>> To:	[email-masked], [email-masked]
>> CC:	
>> Subj:	=?UTF-8?Q?Re:_The_utilitiy_of_IP_is_at_stake_here?=
>> 
>> ...
>> ...
>> 
>> Many folks update their MS software (Linux, too) in the hope th=
>> ey will get more stability / more security / more seatures - no=
>> t becaue of bit rot. Updating mail clients does not seem to be =
>> a huge deal - manypeople update their OS / browser when prompte=
>> d. Majority of my friends & family use a web browser to access =
>> private mail. Companies would have interest in upgrading, if it=
>>  helped also with viruses & security.
>> 

True.  The recent MSN TV ads (with their butterfly man) touting their
spam guard suggest that they do value user's ability to control spam.

Best Regards,

--rr