[145990] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (-Hammer-)
Fri Oct 28 15:03:01 2011
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:59:16 -0500
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWoUjKk-38j4aeW=DdL7zXXMnwAhnsF0c3642YdFv1HQg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
>
>
>
