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

From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:43:51 +0700

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:58:25 -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

>My concern with your approach is with the fact that SPs can employ such 
>measures against someone else without proof, 

Some do it now.  This consideration is unrelated to my proposal. 

>simply cutting off 
>connectivity for some stupid reason and blaming it on not handling abuse 
>reports.

Section 3 of my draft proposes a staged enforcement procedure after
careful investigation.

I am not wedded to any particular procedure.  I just want to move the
discussion from the present 'make the victims pay' model  to the only
one that will ever work, viz. 'make the polluters pay'.  It is fun,
easy to do, shows fast results, and is proven by thousands of years
of experience.

Jeffrey Race

---

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:12:22 -0800

"Dr. Jeffrey Race" wrote:
> I just want to move the
> one that will ever work, viz. 'make the polluters pay'.  

This reminds me of that story where the purported polluter (the lamb) was
downstream but was killed anyway by the enforcer (the lion who was 
drinking upstream)...because the "polluter" had no power to resist the 
enforcer, even though the "polluter" could not pollute upstream...

The Internet is to the user and the SPs like that lamb is to that lion. The
user is the weak party and we should not have a standard that, once again,
leaves the weak party exposed under the assumption that the other party
is somehow trusted. "Trust no one" should be the initial state of the
solution, for any solution.

BTW, how can we talk about "actions that have consequences" in terms of a 
technical solution that the IETF can pursue? The consequences are not 
technical. In addition, they would need to be arbitrated and we know how 
long, ineffective and expensive that can be.

> It is fun,

???

Cheers,
Ed Gerck