[ppml] Question?

[John M. Brown]

Sender pays is a lovely idea, but a PIA to install and
maintain.  How do you handle false positives??  Or we have
to have a complete sender pay system, even for real email.
Bad Idea, IMHO, it will have a chilling affect on the freedom
to send email, rate zones will get created and it will be called
Postal Service.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Mark McFadden
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:20 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Question?
> 
> 
> Is RFC 2505 insufficient, or perhaps not comprehensive enough?
> 
> There's also been other work done:  
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/spam.html
> 
> It seems to me that what we need is a version of SMTP where 
> the "sender pays" in some sense.  Otherwise, we are stuck 
> with the SMTP that has the feature of costing the sender 
> exactly the same -- whether one address is in the header or 
> one million are.
> 
> mark
> 
> Mark McFadden
> Internet/Web Technology Programs
> UW-Milwaukee
> mcf at uwm.edu
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett at msmgmt.com>
> To: "Ron da Silva" <ron at aol.net>; <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:59 PM
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Question?
> 
> 
> > Purpose:
> > To design a method of stopping SPAMmers that becomes a 
> standard rather
> that the current haphazard Blacklist approach.
> > This should include creation of new procedures and methods by the 
> > industry
> with the aid of IETF engineering to identify and to correct 
> the problem in a politically correct manner. (I hate to say 
> it this way, but to say: Shut down the Spammers T-1 is not 
> quite the correct approach, however gratifying it may be)
> >
> > Outcome: An RFC or other similar document with guidelines defining 
> > SPAM,
> listing unacceptable practices to limit or stop abuses of 
> individuals or companies.
> > Along with as clear, concise (as much as it can be coming from a 
> > commitee)
> language that defines SPAM and the possible actions that are 
> recommended to ISP's, End users, and Domain Admins to fight it.
> >
> > Finally:  If the committee comes out and says:
> > Should a block of Address from ISP A is identified as being 
> a massive
> SPAMer, then the AUP's from it's provider with support from 
> the community at large and the RIR's, IETF, IANA, may take 
> these actions, I believe many will adopted it, and the ones 
> who refuse will become the minority since the current outcry 
> about SPAM is just going to grow.
> >
> > Folks, we are on the verge of email becoming the next snail 
> mail if we 
> > sit
> back and watch and allow the junk to flow.
> > If anyone follows the news and the FTC's actions on junk 
> mail, how can 
> > we
> not think about some kind of action?
> > Did you enjoy getting 5,10 or 20 pieces of junk mail daily 
> from the US
> Postal Service when this was the norm?
> >
> > Suggestions anyone?
> >
> >
> > Jim
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron da Silva [mailto:ron at aol.net]
> > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:22 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Question?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 12:45:43PM -0500, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
> > >
> > > What I propose is that...[we] start a committee of a few 
> folks from 
> > > each RIR, the IETF, IANA, and a few other organizations and fix 
> > > this...
> >
> > Ok, committee could be a good idea, but we need to better 
> articulate 
> > what 'this' is, clear expectations of outcome and measure 
> of success. 
> > To what problem would this committee be expected to create 
> a solution? 
> > Also, what would the committee do with the result?  I 
> suspect that at 
> > best the committee would be able to "suggest" a solution to its 
> > constituents.
> >
> > -ron
> >
> >
>