In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eliot Lear writes:
>Tony Hain wrote:
>> The IETF needs to recognize that the ISPs don't really have a good
>> alternative, and work on providing one. If they have an alternative and
>> continue down the path, you are right there is not much the IETF can do.
>> At the same time, market forces will fix that when customers move to the
>> ISP that implements the alternative.
>
>This is very well said. That first sentence could arguably be the credo
>of the IETF, only perhaps not limiting to ISPs.
Yes. Normally, I'd worry a lot about backwards compatibility. In this
case, I think the problems for ISPs -- and users -- are so severe that
people will switch *rapidly* to a new protocol if it solved most of the
spam problem.
My new concern is making sure that we get a *good* solution -- one that
preserves privacy and the end-to-end principle, as well as blocking
spam.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
