[SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses

Rod Beck Rod.Beck at hiberniaatlantic.com
Thu Jun 25 12:38:29 CDT 2009


-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates at brightok.net]
Sent: Thu 6/25/2009 2:39 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses
 
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> ISPs are not common carriers.  Geoff Huston is - as always - the guy
> who explains it best.
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-3/uncommon_carrier.html
> 

Except interestingly, TOR is the common carrier at its best, not 
filtering and investigating the use of the packets being transfered.

The cause for saying an ISP is not a common carrier is the handling of 
abuse of the network, which could still be argued as common carrier in 
that the effects of spam, port scans, etc do have an impact on an ISP if 
they go unchecked and watch other networks filter them out. In addition, 
there are plenty of laws designed to protect customer privacy in the 
government's attempt to provide common carrier status for an ISP.

DMCA also attempts to preserve common carrier for the ISP, requiring the 
ISP to extend a level of trust and act in specific a manner to maintain 
those protections.

I don't think any of it is perfect, and it will take time for government 
to catch up to understanding how the Internet can be handled.


Jack

Agreed. The current regulatory framework, which says that ISPs provide 'enhanced services' is specious. IP is not an enhanced service, it is just a transport protocol, albeit a very popular one because the interfaces are cheap and it embraces routing. 

As I vaguely recollect, the enhanced service definition came up as way of preventing Telcos from completing dominating the ISP world. 

Regards, 

Roderick. 



More information about the NANOG mailing list