Outgoing SMTP Servers
bjohnson at drtel.com
Fri Oct 28 18:16:31 UTC 2011
When you stretch an analogy this thin, it always falls apart. I was referring to the poison/pollution not the water/air. A drought/vacuum* would not be possible, but would you want the poisoned water/air?
This analogy is bad enough without the nits picked out. I actually mixed two posts to create a stream analogy out of an air analogy.
I will not go any further and all further follows on to this analogy should be ignored. :)
- Brian J.
* a lack of air (for a reasonable deffinition of air) would be a vacuum... right?
>From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:11 PM
>To: Brian Johnson
>Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
>>>> 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.
>>> If you choose to pollute the air heavily, the value of the air drops for
>>> If you choose to pollute the Net heavily, the value of the Net drops for
>> STRIKE 3! Oops got ahead of myself.
>> I'm attempting to prevent the pollution but I may capture a little good water
>(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.
>No, it really isn't. Because the good water that you are catching is actually
>a drought downstream.
More information about the NANOG