For both these models, today's weak-security SMTP is still used for email. The ISP having the sender of email is called "SendISP". The ISP with the recipient mailserver is called "RecvISP".
MODEL A: ISPs filter at the source; spam is reduced
ISP's filter outgoing port 25 traffic from networks; allowing exceptions.
SendISP limits outgoing mail. RecvISP has less incentive to block incoming.
If a customer of SendISP want's to run a mail server, SendISP has motivation to
make an exception.
Customer's wanting exceptions tend to be rare.
MODEL B: ISPs filter incoming mail traffic; spam is reduced.
ISP's increase the effectiveness of blacklists and locating dynamic IPs; allowing exceptions as requested by the mail server admins/users. (Filtering may occur at network level or in mail servers.)
SendISP does not limit outgoing mail. RecvISP has strong incentives to block.
If a customer of SendISP want's to run a mail server, RecvISP has almost no motivation to make a blacklist exception. RecvISP is more concerned about _their_ customers/users.
Which model really provides us with the best of both worlds: less spam yet more freedom to innovate? I would say model A does.
However, I am not convinced of this. Please pick apart my models..
(As if I have to ask...)
John
At 01:25 PM 4/4/2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:46:42PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
> As a geek, do you not want the Internet to still be here *completely*
> OPEN and FREE in the future?
And this is the point question.
Much innovation is due to the open end-to-end characteristic of the
current network.
By all means, let's trap port 25 where possible, for those who don't
care (or ask), but let's not go all baby-and-bathwater by filtering
*everything* either...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
