Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews () isc org>]

In article <a2937c33050330225673348cdf () mail gmail com> you write:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:33:49 -0800, Alexei Roudnev <alex () relcom net> wrote:
> > > Heard of a little thing called 'spam'?
> >
> > So what? You can use your car as a weapon; should we prohibit you from car
> > driving?
>
> No, but if your car doesn't have seat belts, we don't let you drive
> it. Basic SMTP lacks safety features that are needed, ergo,
> retrictions were placed on it.

        Basic SMTP is fine.  You all use it today.  I will use it
        to send this message.  SMTP is not better or worse than
        the postal service in identifying the sender and we have
        lived with the possability of fraudulent mail for centuries.
        
        People have this idiotic expectation that because the mail
        is being delivered by a computer rather than a postie that
        the identity of the sender is somehow magically authenticated.

        The real issue is that it is hard to police customer machines
        and it is cheeper to turn off SMTP than it is to identify,
        inform and help fix customer machines.  Sooner or later
        ISPs will have to start doing this as the people compromising
        machines have shown a long history of getting around all
        the blocks put in their way.  Spam is just a minor annoyance
        compared to what they could potentially be doing with the
        compromised machines.

> As was mentioned, my point was just that the question posited was
> flawed. SMTP isn't restricted for competition and money-making
> reasons, but because to not restrict it can have quite undesired
> implications. The question was why was one ok, and the other not. The
> answer is because of spam.
>
> Jamie