One of the reasons people pay money to an ISP is for service -- and
     that's more than simply a modem answering an an IP address.  If AOL
     feels compelled to take action based on the business needs of their
     community (which includes themselves), well then so be it.

     Some time ago, we started working on a set of business and technology
     plans that would support the notion of "atolls" wherein users would
     reside within these private high value network and most of the 'net
     would be filtered - not so much as to censor that which was somehow
     deemed to be inappropriate, but to ensure that the information flowing
     into the atoll was qualified, in whatever sense it needed to be.

     And that's an issue which far outweighs any consideration of source
     routing or whatever else.  When I was a kid, I'd go into the library
     to do research for school projects - and somehow I knew that
     Encylopedia Britannica was more likely to have sound information
     (Vonnegut notwithstanding) than the rantings that were inscribed on
     the lavatory walls.

     What opportunity does a child have to make the same distinction when
     all they're reading are web pages? If the veracity of the information
     is to be determined by the quality of the presentation, then there
     would be an uncomfortably large number of Silicon Valley companies
     whose Web presence would be a significant disservice to their
     ventures.


     So if AOL chooses to do this? Well, good on them. However, what cost
     this compartmentalization?

     <End Soapbox>
     dhk



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: AOL mail traffic
Author:  [log in to unmask] at SMTPLINK-GC
Date:    5/8/97 2:07 PM


Your message dated: Thu, 08 May 1997 16:07:42 EDT

> - I merely object to rejecting mail based on a source route appearing in the
>   MAIL From: command.

    Object all you want.  It was already a "SHOULD NOT generate"
in RFC 1123 (over six years ago), and the practice is becoming more
and more deprecated as the days go by.


    If you want to guarantee that entire world will always be 100%
backwards compatible, I guess that means that you'd better travel
back in time a few years and keep them from inventing this thing
called "fire".  Or the "wheel", for that matter.

    Alternatively, invest in Microsoft.  When they own the world (and
you are compelled to accept ActiveX applets when they push them down
to your brain), everything will be guaranteed to be 100% compatible.

--
Brad Knowles                                MIME/PGP: [log in to unmask]
    Senior Unix Administrator              <http://www.his.com/~brad/>
<http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE38CCEF1>