Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is not a "net" reduction in service, because we've taken the time
> savings and put them back into either bringing up some other service or
> making some other service better. It is therefore a "net" increase in
> the level of service provided.
I think I can cede ground and agree with you here.
> Okay, well, we all KNOW that it's a shame to have to do this. It's a
> shame that we need passwords, and session limits, and idle timers,
> and... But the fact of the matter is that we NEED a lot of this stuff,
> and that the reasons WHY they suck really aren't relevant when compared
> to the reasons why we need them.
Except that the reasons why you need them are necessary and important
information when it comes to finding alternate solutions. Here's what I'm
specifically afraid of: This solution becoming the standard and then
everyone thinking there's no way ports can be unblocked, even after we end
up with some better solution for spam.
Little known fact: Usenet spam is dropping noticeably. Plus more widely
known facts: The number of open e-mail relays is dropping steadily, even
if it's still quite large. Vendors are shipping with relaying off by
default. New MTAs are pretty unanimous in their restriction of relaying.
We're actually winning this fight on a lot of different fronts, and I
really don't want to see necessary short-term measures become cast in
stone if the world successfully changes down the road.
> As such, I don't see your point in complaining if you aren't going to
> offer some other possible solution.
Fair enough.
> This is a trade-off, one that has benefitted us enormously while costing
> us relatively little. It is something we can pass on to our customers
> in the form of cost savings or additional services. If you can't call
> this a "feature," at least don't call it a "reduction in service."
It is a reduction in service, though. A given service, namely IP
connectivity on port 25, is no longer available. That's a reduction by
definition. Whether or not it's balanced by other expansions in service
doesn't change the fact that that specifically is a reduction.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
