North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: SORBS Contact
> From owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx Wed Aug 9 22:00:58 2006 > To: nanog@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: SORBS Contact > From: Allan Poindexter <apoindex@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:59:36 -0600 > > > Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I should > Matthew> not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and > Matthew> perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and > Matthew> from my networks? > > If you want to run a network off in the corner by yourself this is > fine. If you have agreed to participate in the Internet you have an > obligation to deliver your traffic. Obligation to _whom_? My only obligations are to those who _pay_ me for access to my systems/resources. If the people who *do* pay me for use of my systems/resources "don't want" that cr*p, then I do 'have an obligation' to _not_ deliver that traffic. And _how_ I implement that, to the satisfaction of =my= customers, is NONE OF _YOUR_ BUSINSESS, since you are *not* one of my paying customers. I don't have to tell _you_ what I do; I don't have to listen to any of your 'complaints'; and I sure-as-hell don't have to defend, _to_you_, what I do. > At LISA a couple of years ago a Microsoftie got up at the SPAM > symposium and told of an experiment they did where they asked their > hotmail users to identify their mail messages as spam or not. He said > the users got it wrong some small percentage amount of the time. I > was stunned at the arrogance and presumption in that comment. You > can't tell from looking at the contents, source, or destination if > something is spam because none of these things can tell whether the > message was requested or is wanted by the recipient. The recipient is > the only person who can determine these things. Do *you* _KNOW_ how hotmail came up with that determination that 'users got it wrong some small percentage of the time'? If you *don't*, you are exhibiting _at_least_ as much 'arrogance and presumption' as you accuse them of. I *KNOW*FOR*A*FACT*, that some people _do_, occasionally 'get it wrong'. I, _personally_, have done it. Be it an 'off-by-one' error in selecting and marking the message, to a long-delayed response to something _I_ sent, and that came in _without_ reference to what I sent, errors *DO* happen. Note: it can be _really_ easy to figure out if/when people mis-identify 'spam'. You ask them to classify a bunch of old messages, presented one at a time. You present the _same_ message *more*than*once*. If they mark it is 'good' three times, and 'spam' once. Then they *did* 'get it wrong' -- it's not certain _which_ way they 'got it wrong', but it *IS* absolutely certain that they did 'get it wrong' "at least once". I've seen some of the stuff AOL _users_ flag as 'spam' -- "content analysis" *alone* virtually guarantees that they were flagged in error. Things like college acceptance letters from Division I schools, bank overdraft notices, NDRs for mail they themselves *sent*, 'delivery receipts' and/or 'read receipts' that they had _requested_ on mail they sent out, etc., etc. > > There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of the > moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email > "lost" silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin. If you want 'reliable' delivery, you _pay_ the recieving system (and the intermediaries) for that service. Your lack of patience with something other people _give_ you the free use of is, quite simply, an inexcusable display of arrogance and presumption.