Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 9 May 1997 00:21:35 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
From: |
|
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|