[145996] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Oct 28 15:59:49 2011
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06F59721C6F@EX02.drtel.lan>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:54:10 -0600
To: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:16, Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> When you stretch an analogy this thin, it always falls apart. I was referr=
ing to the poison/pollution not the water/air. A drought/vacuum* would not b=
e possible, but would you want the poisoned water/air?
>=20
I can tolerate a lot of spam if my legitimate messages get through. I have z=
ero tolerance for blocking my legitimate traffic in the name of stopping pol=
lution. I oppose the death penalty on the same basis.=20
Owen
> This analogy is bad enough without the nits picked out. I actually mixed t=
wo posts to create a stream analogy out of an air analogy.
>=20
> I will not go any further and all further follows on to this analogy shoul=
d be ignored. :)
>=20
> - Brian J.
>=20
> * a lack of air (for a reasonable deffinition of air) would be a vacuum...=
right?
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:11 PM
>> To: Brian Johnson
>> Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>>> Nor is the data transiting these networks a commons. The air over my
>>>>> land is a commons. I don't control it. If I pollute it or if I don't,
>>>>> it promptly travels over someone else's land.
>>>>=20
>>>> If you choose to pollute the air heavily, the value of the air drops fo=
r
>>>> everybody.
>>>> If you choose to pollute the Net heavily, the value of the Net drops fo=
r
>>>> everybody.
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> STRIKE 3! Oops got ahead of myself.
>>>=20
>>> I'm attempting to prevent the pollution but I may capture a little good w=
ater
>> (almost nothing) along the way. To say that this is a way of "bad acting"=
and
>> causes a loss of value to the Internet as a whole is pure folly.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> No, it really isn't. Because the good water that you are catching is actu=
ally
>> causing
>> a drought downstream.
>>=20
>> Owen
>=20
