Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?

Sun Oct 28 23:53:24 UTC 2001

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 06:26:43PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 03:08:36PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > So this now boils down to "if the sender and receiver of a packet/session/etc
> > are both interested in having it take place, then noone in the middle shall be
> > allowed to deliberately prevent this from occuring."
> 
> Yes, i would think so.  If both parties want it, and both pay for
> their part, no one should interfear in the middle.

Sure, but the sender of a SPAM message selling kiddie porn, VIAGRA, Gas Masks
and a discount on Viagra, etc hasn't asked me if I want it.   

And if I tell him, NO I don't want it, they will send it anyway.  Or at the very
least tag my address as valid, sell it to someone else who will send me stuff
I don't want.

> To borrow a current analogy.  Consider if the postal service announced
> today that to stop the spread of anthrax they were just going to burn
> all of the mail currently in the system.  After all, it's for the
> greater good.
> 

Don't confuse gov abilities with those of private entities.  
Private companies can refuse to accept traffic from those that they wish.

(ramble about how recep comp works in the telco world)

> It "works" in the telco world.  It could be argued it's not much
> more complicated for ISP's than managing BGP relationships and
> billing customers.  Most importantly I can see accounting people
> and legislators being all for it.
> 

Really, the CLECs are now being paid by the ILECS for call termination.
Wow, I must really be out of the loop now.......