A few words in defense of AOL

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: March 20, 2006 1:37:56 PM EST
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: A few words in defense of AOL

(for IP, if you wish)

But first, two disclaimers:

1. I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, an AOL fan.  The
September-that-never-ended still annoys me.

2. I'm not in favor of AOL's "Goodmail" proposal or similar schemes.

That said:

AOL has done an exemplary job of controlling the amount of abuse  
_emitted_
by their network.  They've applied the resources necessary to get the
job done: money, people, clue, processes, whatever.  They've been paying
attention.  They've been interacting with their peers, in the best  
tradition
of 'net collaboration and cooperation.  They've admitted their mistakes,
figured them out, gone off and fixed them.  They've been engaged in
exchanges of information that have helped both AOL and the rest of the
world make forward progress.  As a result, the amount of abuse that  
comes
from their network is tiny compared to their enormous size.  Carl  
Hutzler,
Christine Borgia, and the rest of the crew there have just worked their
butts off.  They're still doing so.

Few others of similarly large size have done so well.  (Suresh
Ramasubramanian & the folks at Outblaze come to mind, as do Afterburner
and associates at RCN, and I'd be remiss not to mention them.)

So let's keep something in mind: if _everyone_ did what AOL has done --
and in this aspect of their operation, they're leading by example --
then we would not be having any debates on the merits/lack thereof of
Goodmail, because there would be no need for it to be on table
for discussion.

After all, abuse (including spam) does not magically fall out of the  
sky.
It comes from systems.  Those systems are on networks.  Those networks
are run by people.  If those networks emit abuse on a chronic, systemic
basis, then we are left to conclude:

        - The people running those networks are incompetent.
and/or
        - The people running those networks are lazy.
and/or
        - The people running those networks are cheap.
and/or
        - The people running those networks are being paid off by abusers.

We can conclude this because competently-run networks do NOT emit abuse
on a chronic, systemic basis.  (Everyone has a problem now and then.
That's probably just a fact of Internet life at this point.  But such
events are temporary and localized, not chronic and systemic.  And
they're temporary and localized because the keepers of those networks
have seen that they are so, using methods that are well-known and
readily applicable.)

My point being that if the people running the networks at Verizon,
SBC/Yahoo, Versatel, Comcast, Wanadoo, Blueyonder, Yahoo, Charter,
Adelphia, VSNL, Hotmail, BBTec, Touchtel India, Tiscali, and a whole
bunch of other large operations [1] would merely do what AOL has  
_already_
done vis-a-vis trying to keep their own operations from being a menace
to the rest of the Internet...that (a) this entire discussion would
be moot and (b) the entire Internet would benefit.

To put it another way: Goodmail is not the problem.  Goodmail doesn't
really matter.  Goodmail is merely a symptom of the problem, and it  
joins
a long list of symptoms.  The problem is grossly incompetent/negligent
network management on a global scale, and our collective failure to
hold those responsible accountable.

---Rsk

[1] I can observe, for example, a steady stream of spam emanating from
those networks 24x7.  If I can see that traffic _entering_ my network,
surely they can see it _leaving_ theirs...if only they bothered to look.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/