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