Outgoing SMTP Servers
bhmccie at gmail.com
Fri Oct 28 18:59:16 UTC 2011
You are all pretty. End the thread. Seriously.
"I was a normal American nerd"
On 10/28/2011 01:59 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Joel jaeggli<joelja at 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?
> Bill Herrin
More information about the NANOG