Subject: Re: "Principles" of "Spam-abatement"

From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:28:37 +0700

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:04:58 -0500, John Leslie wrote:

>> - If you say that third party organization could assure you that
>>   a mail sender is not a spammer, then you must agree that an ISP
>>   could check with that organization before adding a password to
>>   a RADIUS server or or turn on a DSLAM, and that an ISP could
>>   terminate an account when that third party revokes is assurance.
>
>   The first part is actually true: I think we'd actually see that
>if such third-party services come into common use. :^)
>
>   The second part (terminating) is not true, IMHO. There's a real
>danger of getting sued for that,

Depends entirely on what the contract of carriage says.  Obviously
one of the norms we have to universalize in standards and practice
documents is that carriage is denied to polluters as part of the
contract, and this provision must bind everyone else who shares
connectivity under the contract.

> not to mention the loss of revenue.

There you have it!  Polluting pays!  See 
<http://www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf>

Jeffrey Race

---

From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:55:43 +0700

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:21:42 -0500 (EST), Robert G. Brown wrote:

>To even START to "fix" this problem, postmaster has to work on the relay
>and be responsive.  The relay host manager has to know that their access
>to the entire Internet will be effectively terminated if they don't have
>a working postmaster address

Work has already started on this:

 <http://www.rfc-ignorant.com/>