On Thu, 08 May 1997 14:48:08 -0400 [log in to unmask]
wrote:

> On Thu, 08 May 1997 14:01:27 EDT, John C Klensin said:
> > As the author of that text, there are three separate issues
> > here; confusion among them is unfortunate:
>
> Umm.. John?  Actually, there's a few more issues than just 3.

Ok,  It is *really* complicated.

> The second issue is  what your  answer  actually addresses -  do sites
> have a *generic* right to reject arbitrary mail (not just relaying for
> 2 other sites, or other specific case), and if so, what grounds are
> considered justifiable?
>
> I *do*  have a  problem with their   refusing  to accept   mail merely
> because it had  passed through a  relay sometime  before they received
> it, on purely syntactic grounds  that the RFC's mandate support   of.

I understand, I think, "your problem".  Starting from the
principle that either there is no such thing as a free
lunch, or, if there is, that AOL is under no obvious
obligation to provide you with one...  I personally believe
that sides providing a certain amount of "free" relaying is
good for the network.  But, as the volume rises enough that
one must consider either limiting relaying (even from
perfectly nice non-customers) or going off and buying more
hardware, which do you expect them to do?  And, if the
latter, how you expect them to pay for the stuff?  Let me
suggest some alternatives to see which one you like:

  -- Taxing their customers to pay for their non-customers?
  -- Applying to the government for a subsidy?
       ....

> Ahh.. but AOL is rejecting mail  *PRECISELY* because sites have chosen
> one form over another.  That's the crux of the problem.

Ok. I think that particular mechanism is silly.  If I felt
like rejecting relaying, I wouldn't mess with source routes
one way or the other -- but I haven't seen AOL's usage
profile; if I had, I might change my mind.  You think it is
immoral (I assume, or you might not be getting so excited).
Add your opinion to my opinion to a half-buck, and maybe it
buys a cup of coffee.  The alternatives are either
regulation and/or subsidy (see above) and the provision of
free lunches, or AOL has to have the right to make business
decisions.  If those decisions are bad enough, their
customers will go elsewhere or do unpleasant things and
AOL will either change their minds or go out of business.
If they are good decisions, then their profitability and
ROI will improve, and our opinions don't count.

Even if the standards contained "you must not bounce/
reject because someone use source routes, you must report
some other reason like 'general cussedness'", it would be
basically useless.   Writing stuff into standards that
"requires" organizations to behave differently than they
believe it is in their business interests to behave is a
really efficient way to get the standards ignored.

  regards,
     john