John M. Brown
john at chagres.net
Mon Dec 2 15:29:34 EST 2002
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
> -----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:
> 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 McFadden
> Internet/Web Technology Programs
> 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
> > 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML