Subject: RE: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions

From: "Sauer, Damon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:59 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:17 PM
To: Sauer, Damon
Cc: [email-masked]; Sauer, Damon; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions

> My home ISP blocks port 25.  As a result, I can't debug problems with
> email from home.
> 
> --- Considering debugging a major issue in not allowing a closed port
> 25? I believe that this could be simply resolved with an internal only
> server. It is not a insurmountable problem, just a technical one.

oh, they'd be happy to let me send to port 25 if I paid them $300/month.
mainly it's a bad precedent.  

---------- Ok.. then we can agree that this is not a show stopper.

> if ISPs charge for SMTP then they have even more incentive to harbor
> spammers.
>  
> ---- But easier to identify. Also, at this point you have destroyed
> the reason why there is so much spam... because it truly costs next to
> nothing.

no it just means I get spammed for Ivory Soap instead of Fireman's Pump.
it's still spam, and it's still obnoxious.

---------- By getting rid of John Q. Public spammers allows for the drastic
reduction in spam. Killing the big spamhauses at this point is then easier.
Herd and control. I am not talking about the utter cessation of spam. But, I
would be happy if I reduced all my spam to only one type of hand soap rather
that 3,000.

> it's perfectly legitimate to send mail through other servers.  mobile
> users need to do this quite often.
> 
> --- Sure it is, if you are connected to another service through a
> dialup, the sending email should be able to be relayed to the "home"
> server for delivery.

it's also perfectly legitimate to originate mail from a dialup line,
without relaying through some third party's server.

----------- This one requires the most thought. I am not sure that my idea
of sending to the "home" server for relay is a good idea because how does
the home server authenticate the relayed email? However, if we can find a
way, the network traffic caused by mobile users is not even measurable
compared to the amount of traffic that is removed due to less spamming.
If I could reduce spam traffic by 50% I could get rid of some VERY expensive
servers, software, etc.

> let's just say I'm glad you are not my ISP.  it's abuse like this that
> illustrate just how important it is to let any ISP sell DSL over the
> LEC's phone lines.
> 
> --- Keith, my ideas are my own and in no way reflect the position of
> my employer. 

nor did I say that they did.

------------ I apologize if I misunderstood. :-)

Regards,
Damon

*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:15 -0500

> oh, they'd be happy to let me send to port 25 if I paid them
> $300/month. mainly it's a bad precedent.  
> 

if would be a show stopper if this group tried to recommend it.
as it is, I don't see this group doing anything that specific,
much less that stupid, so I'm not worried about it.

> ---------- By getting rid of John Q. Public spammers allows for the
> drastic reduction in spam.

no it doesn't.  it just means the spam comes from DMA members.
the signal to noise ratio of email will still suck.

> But, I would be happy if I reduced all my spam to
> only one type of hand soap rather that 3,000.

it's not at all clear to me that 3000 ads for 3000 different products is
better than 3000 ads for 10 different products.  the latter are easier
to filter.

> ----------- This one requires the most thought. I am not sure that my
> idea of sending to the "home" server for relay is a good idea because
> how does the home server authenticate the relayed email? 

SMTP authentication is already defined.  the point is that it's not
always appropriate to impose this burden.

> ------------ I apologize if I misunderstood. :-)

good.  now since these ideas are your own, and you're not speaking for
your employer, you might want to get rid of that obnoxious disclaimer -
that incidentally violates IETF rules (though to be fair I'm not sure
whether IETF rules apply to an IRTF WG):

or does your ISP force you to use a relay that appends this garbage?

> "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
> or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
> is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the
> sender and delete the material from all computers."

Keith