Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers

[-Hammer- <bhmccie () gmail com>]

Girls,
    You are all pretty. End the thread. Seriously.

-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer



On 10/28/2011 01:59 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Joel jaeggli<joelja () bogus com>  wrote:
>    
> > Email as facility is a public good whether it constitutes a commons or
> > not... If wasn't you wouldn't bother putting up a server that would
> > accept unsolicited incoming connections on behalf of yourself and
> > others, doing so is generically non-rival and non-excludable although
> > not perfectly so in either case (what public good is).
> >      
> Interesting. I want to abstract and restate what I think you just said
> and ask you to correct my understanding:
>
> Making a service accessible to the public via the Internet implicitly
> grants some basic permission to that public to make use of the
> service, permission which can not be revoked solely by saying so.
>
>
> If that's the case, what is the common denominator? What is the
> standard of permission automatically granted by placing an email
> server on the internet, from which a particular operator may grant
> more permission but may not reasonably grant less? Put another way,
> what's the whitelist of activities for which we generally expect our
> vendor to ignore complaints, what's the blacklist of activities for
> which a vendor who fails to adequately redress complaints is
> misbehaving and what's left in the gray zone where behavior might be
> abusive but is not automatically so?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>