Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?

["John M . Brown" <jmbrown () ihighway net>]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 06:26:43PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 03:08:36PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > So this now boils down to "if the sender and receiver of a packet/session/etc
> > are both interested in having it take place, then noone in the middle shall be
> > allowed to deliberately prevent this from occuring."
>
> Yes, i would think so.  If both parties want it, and both pay for
> their part, no one should interfear in the middle.

Sure, but the sender of a SPAM message selling kiddie porn, VIAGRA, Gas Masks
and a discount on Viagra, etc hasn't asked me if I want it.   

And if I tell him, NO I don't want it, they will send it anyway.  Or at the very
least tag my address as valid, sell it to someone else who will send me stuff
I don't want.

> To borrow a current analogy.  Consider if the postal service announced
> today that to stop the spread of anthrax they were just going to burn
> all of the mail currently in the system.  After all, it's for the
> greater good.

Don't confuse gov abilities with those of private entities.  
Private companies can refuse to accept traffic from those that they wish.

(ramble about how recep comp works in the telco world)

> It "works" in the telco world.  It could be argued it's not much
> more complicated for ISP's than managing BGP relationships and
> billing customers.  Most importantly I can see accounting people
> and legislators being all for it.

Really, the CLECs are now being paid by the ILECS for call termination.
Wow, I must really be out of the loop now.......