Re: SORBS Contact

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> From owner-nanog () merit edu  Wed Aug  9 22:00:58 2006
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: SORBS Contact
> From: Allan Poindexter <apoindex () aoc nrao edu>
> 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.