I have a lot of sympathy for system operators trying to limit spamming.  I don't understand where issues of "legitimacy" originate.  I may be mistaken, but most of the internet operates on a cooperative basis, not a basis formed by contractual agreements.  Therefore there are no agreements to break.  

Postal and telephony traffic arrangements are on a contractual or treaty basis which usually makes it clear what legitimacy is.  End users of the internet usually have some contractual arrangements with ISPs and ISPs with some backbone operators but mostly these are local arrangements.  Perhaps the internet is now arriving at a stage where some legal structure is becoming necessary so that all participants know what their legitimate responsibilities are.

Herman Silbiger



---------
From:   [log in to unmask][SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Thursday, May 08, 1997 2:48 PM
To:     John C Klensin
Cc:     [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; IBM TCP/IP List
Subject:        Re: AOL mail traffic 

<<File: ATT00017.att>>
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.

> Q1: Is a site required to handle relay traffic that starts 
> from arbitrary sources and is destined for arbitrary sinks?
> 
> A: Nope.  Sites can decline to accept mail for 
> substantially any reason they feel like.  If the 

This  is  2 issues.  The  question  asked is  the specific question of
whether you  must act as a  relay for  2  other  parties when you wish
not to.  I   don't think  anybody disagrees  that AOL has the right to
refuse to act as a  mail   relay.  I don't  have  a problem with AOL's
refusing to  act  as  a relay  for 2  3rd  parties.   I don't   have a
problem  with AOL  refusing    to  accept any email   from a list   of
known spam sites (AOL  has     a  list of    such sites on the web  at
http://www.idot.aol.com/preferredmail/).       I  don't     have     a
problem  with AOL     rejecting   source  routing   from  known   spam
havens.

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.

> Conversely, if I'm running host x.y.z, and I refuse to 
> accept your traffic for relaying, I'm going to do so 
> because I don't like you for some reason, and probably not 
> because you have chosen one of those forms over the other.

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

AOL set up Preferredmail  as part of the  CyberPromo  lawsuit(s).  Are
their  users aware that some *OTHER*  mail  may be getting rejected as
well, with no warning and no option for the users?  It sounds like the
users whos mail is being rejected  would have even  MORE grounds for a
lawsuit than CyberPromo did....


-- 
                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Computer Systems Senior Engineer
                                Virginia Tech