Are we looking for solutions, or just ranting? (was Re: Comcast and SORBS)

[lug at the-leveys.us (Don Levey)]

discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 06:19:40PM -0500, Bob George wrote:
>> Derek Martin wrote:
>>
>>> [...] As we have seen, this apparently doesn't solve the problem.
>>
>> Then I'm confused as to what the problem IS.
>
> In broadly stated terms, the problems is that individuals are being
> restricted from running their own Internet services (specifically
> e-mail, but the argument applies to other services too, where for
> example incoming HTTP ports are being blocked, etc.) without paying
> exhorbitant fees (i.e. buying business-class service) for the
> privilege to do so, through the actions of large corporations with the
> finacial resources and market share to effect this.  These business
> practices are unfair, and consumers should not tolerate it.
> Businessess exist to provide PEOPLE with services.  But they have come
> to think of the relationship in reverse; people exist to provide THEM
> with a revenue stream.  We have allowed them to think this way by
> being apathetic.  We should not tolerate this in our society.
>
Now we're moving to the heart of the argument, which is different from the
original discussion.  And, BTW, I can agree with the above.

>> Even if your ISP allows outbound SMTP (Rich's does I believe), others
>> may well blacklist such ranges. Like it or not, that's how it is. Any
>> solution will have to contend with this reality at some level.
>
> It doesn't have to be.  As consumers, we do have some power; but only
> if enough consumers care, and complain.  Getting people to care is the
> hard part.
>
It's a balancing act - companies need to weigh the demands of their
consumers with the costs those demands entail.  Being blocked by AOL may
well be one of those costs.

>>> [..] It shouldn't be. E-mail is becoming just as important a means
>>> of communication as the telephone; the ISP should not have the right
>>> to block the sender just because they don't like their net address
>>> block, just as phone companies can't block incoming calls from their
>>> competitors (or for any reason, AFAIK).
>>
>> But of course an individual can refuse calls from whoever they like.
>
> Indeed, and individuals can and should be able to run their own spam
> filters to dump e-mail from people they don't want to communicate.
> In my opinion, the ISP should not be performing this role on behalf of
> people.  Yes, it saves spam...  But some people WANT that spam as
> testified to by the fact that it actually does generate a considerable
> amount of revenue.  Ultimately the decision of who can deliver mail to
> be should be left up to me.
>
But what you're doing is shifting the burden (and the cost) of combatting
the spam onto your own shoulders - and the shoulders of every recipient.
And remember that AOL is doing exactly that: deciding who will deliver mail
to their customers.  What you're advocating is also what you're complaining
about, unless you feel that AOL users (for example) are savvy enough to be
able to set up their own blocking and filtering rules.

Spam makes money - and much of it is scam-based.  Do people really want
that, or does that spam make money only because people fall victim?  Keep in
mind also that from a sysadmin point of view, once the user is able to block
or filter, the damage has already been done.  You've already incurred the
costs of passing that traffic.
>
> Here's my proposal:  Go to your ISP and demand that they allow you to
> run your own mail server.  write e-mail and letters to all the
> companies you know of which block e-mail based on netblocks.  There's
> no need for them to do this; there are other methods they can use
> which will not penalize legitimate users.  Finally, write to your
> comngressman to demand that ISPs start acting more fairly.
>
As far as your proposals go:
* My ISP does allow me to run my own server - as long as I pay for a static
IP.  That, BTW, removes an IP from their pool no matter whether I'm on or
not, as opposed to dynamic, where they can maintain a smaller pool than
their subscriber base.  The static IP costs them some (minimal) amount more.

* I have no intention of writing to people who block based upon netblocks,
except perhaps as an expression of appreciation.  The use of "legitimate" is
also questionable; if your TOS does not permit the running of a mail server,
then you're not legitimate in the eyes of your own ISP no matter how noble
your motives or how skilled your administration.

* I'll be happy to write my congressman.  But "fair" is also a subjective
word.  I'd like ISPs to take more responsibility for their own neighborhood.
That'd be fair to me.

>
> I'm open to other suggestions, so long as the end result is that I can
> use my PERSONAL mail server at reasonable, PERSONAL prices, an not be
> arbitrarily blocked for no good reason.  But it seems like it will
> require legislative changes.

Well, we've already established that you're not being *arbitrarily* blocked,
and the blockages are for good reason.  While I'm all for lower prices, the
telecoms (et al) are going under.  It's unlikely that they'll cut their
prices except as a way to hasten their decline.

 -Don