On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Doug wrote:

I will continue to support legislation and other methods to transfer the cost of advertising back to the advertiser. If there are enforceable penalties for fraudulent message headers and routing, so be it. If the legislation forces dissidents and whistleblowers to use postal mail, so much the better. I do not agree that these so-called "freedoms" need to be at my expense.

It's fairly possible, if the adversary know what he's doing and takes the time and effort, to disguise the mail's origin pretty well. (Think eg. open HTTPS proxies or a hacked box.) Now, you irked someone. That someone forges a spam mail advertising your business. Prove your innocence!

Legitimate email - deliver as intended. non-legitimate email - block the connection at the server.

Do we need laws for that? Software is easier to upgrade/change than laws, less likely to misfire, and easier to deal with when it misfires. Laws won't help in recognizing legitimate and non-legitimate mail. Artificial intelligence will be more effective than the Congress. (On the other hand, *anything* is usually more effective than the Congress.) The law in question will be TOO easy to use as a weapon.

* Thomas Shaddack [2003-08-01 21:54]:

...

Legitimate email - deliver as intended. non-legitimate email - block the connection at the server.

Do we need laws for that?

We definately need a law making it illegal for an ISP to block non-spam email. I cannot email a friend who uses AOL, and wants to receive my email, because AOL blocks it. The only law out there to protect me from this is a denial of service law, but it will be difficult for me to argue that AOL is doing a DoS attack on me. I have no choice but to take actions under the DoS laws, but I would much rather have a law that makes blocking legitimate communication a crime.

Software is easier to upgrade/change than laws, less likely to misfire, and easier to deal with when it misfires.

What software are you talking about? If it's the end user software, I don't care, because if I cannot email a friend I can motivate them to fix the problem. But if you're talking about software that an ISP would run, you're missing something. AOL's software is falsely blocking my email, and even though they could fix the problem, they are not motivated because I'm a single user. I've complained several times. They just ignore the complaint. So software is a poor solution if the people implementing the software are not motivated to fix false positives.

Laws won't help in recognizing legitimate and non-legitimate mail. Artificial intelligence will be more effective than the Congress. (On the other hand, *anything* is usually more effective than the Congress.)

Why would you say this? It's not difficult to define spam. You simply list the charactoristics of spam, and then list exclusions to ensure legitimate mail doesn't fit the definition. This has working beautifully for defining telemarketing phone calls. There is not a single math equation in the legal definition for "unsolicited telemarketing call". Even if there are imperfections in the definition, people can at least be aware of the definition and make sure that they aren't in the grey area. If an email is in a grey area, then the sender takes a risk by sending it. But to argue that law should not address a particular issue because of the difficulty of writing a definition is silly. You just write the definition such that the law doesn't target email that it doesn't intend to target, and let go the fact that it may not target everything we would like it to. And to say that software can define spam better than laws written in english is rediculous. AOL blocks my personal email to a friend, and I don't use a single spam phrase. So it goes the other way too.. the way software can define spam can get pretty stupid, I've seen it too many times.

The law in question will be TOO easy to use as a weapon.

What do you mean by this? One could argue that I'm using the TCPA as a weapon against all these telemarketers I drag into court. So what? Most people see what I do as a service to the community.

* John Kozubik [2003-08-02 19:27]:

That is incorrect. AOL owns their network, and they can respond to your arbitrary communications on their network in any way they see fit.

Unfortunately, you're correct.

Maybe they will deliver your email to your AOL subscribing friend. Maybe they will block that email. Maybe they will translate the email into French and reverse the word-order and then send it to your friend. Maybe they will print it out and mail it back to you for no reason. All of these responses are perfectly legitimate, and represent a private entity using their property in whatever way they see fit,

Yes, this is the problem I'm trying to address. Normally when Alice tries to transmit information to Bob, if Mallory decides to sabotage the communication, this is a denial of service attack, forbidden by criminal law. However, if the communication passes through Mallory's back yard, we can let the attack happen because it's on Mallory's property. At the same time, if I sabotage the city water line that passes through my property, I can be held accountable. And rightly so. Mallory should also be held accountable for blocking communications. This is what needs to change.

It amazes me how many people on this list only respect private property when it is convenient for them to do so. (For reference, see the "Tim May argues (correctly) that people can't protest in his house" and, more recently, the "Gilmore thinks airlines can't refuse him travel for any reason they see fit" threads)

There's a balance of rights, and obviously private property rights aren't going to always get priority. While they're high on my list in *some* cases, they don't top human rights. Some rights are a little more fundamental and important than private property rights. And when someone abuses their property to damage someone else, I have zero respect for their private property rights. So I'm not at all surprized that someone would perceive an inconsistency on this issue, because there are so many more important rights that have a greater bearing on peoples happiness. AOL isn't even a human, so to put the private property rights of AOL above the well-being of any human is a silly mistake. In my particular case, AOL is blocking me from talking to friends and family. I suppose I could argue that the packets I create and send are created with my private property and resources, so those packets are my property, and AOL is vandalizing my property by destroying these packets. You can argue that how you want, but the bottom line is that AOL is using their property to gain power to control who may talk to who. This is clearly an abusive use of property, and I have no tolarance for it. They need to be removed from power, and the consumers who contributed to the purchasing of their property need to be given some rights. So if you're saying that AOL's private property rights are supporting their effort to stop me from talking to my family, then of course I have very little respect for private property rights. I often see people using their private property to cause damage to others, so it's not real top on my list in these cases.

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:

* John Kozubik [2003-08-02 19:27]:

...

That is incorrect. AOL owns their network, and they can respond to your arbitrary communications on their network in any way they see fit.

Unfortunately, you're correct.

...

Maybe they will deliver your email to your AOL subscribing friend. Maybe they will block that email. Maybe they will translate the email into French and reverse the word-order and then send it to your friend. Maybe they will print it out and mail it back to you for no reason. All of these responses are perfectly legitimate, and represent a private entity using their property in whatever way they see fit,

Yes, this is the problem I'm trying to address. Normally when Alice tries to transmit information to Bob, if Mallory decides to sabotage the communication, this is a denial of service attack, forbidden by criminal law.

However, if the communication passes through Mallory's back yard, we can let the attack happen because it's on Mallory's property. At the same time, if I sabotage the city water line that passes through my property, I can be held accountable. And rightly so. Mallory should also be held accountable for blocking communications. This is what needs to change.

This comparison is invalid. You are correct that your private property is ... well ... your private property, but if you look closely you will find that you have a contract (of some kind, be it an agreement, etc.) with your city - most likely in the form of an easement. So, by interrupting their water line, you would be breaking your contract. Make no mistake, if you hold a contract that AOL entered in with you that stipulates that they must send your email that you place onto their property to your friend, then by all means prosecute them to your fullest ability. Further, if the AUP/TOS ("contract") that your friend, as a subscriber, has with AOL stipulates something similar, then again, go forward with my best wishes. We all know, however, that AOL has no such contract with you, and that their contract with your friend most likely boils down to "we will do as we see fit and you will like it", and further, that even the peering agreements that AOL has with other service providers, common carrier laws, etc. most likely do not come anywhere near to stipulating this. As well they shouldn't. So once again, we are back to: AOL can do whatever they want with the bits you place on their private property.

...

It amazes me how many people on this list only respect private property when it is convenient for them to do so. (For reference, see the "Tim May argues (correctly) that people can't protest in his house" and, more recently, the "Gilmore thinks airlines can't refuse him travel for any reason they see fit" threads)

There's a balance of rights, and obviously private property rights aren't going to always get priority. While they're high on my list in *some* cases, they don't top human rights. Some rights are a little more fundamental and important than private property rights. And when someone abuses their property to damage someone else, I have zero respect for their private property rights. So I'm not at all surprized that someone would perceive an inconsistency on this issue, because there are so many more important rights that have a greater bearing on peoples happiness.

AOL isn't even a human, so to put the private property rights of AOL above the well-being of any human is a silly mistake.

In my particular case, AOL is blocking me from talking to friends and family. I suppose I could argue that the packets I create and send are created with my private property and resources, so those packets are my property, and AOL is vandalizing my property by destroying these packets. You can argue that how you want, but the bottom line is that AOL is using their property to gain power to control who may talk to who. This is clearly an abusive use of property, and I have no tolarance for it. They need to be removed from power, and the consumers who contributed to the purchasing of their property need to be given some rights.

This will be my last response to this thread. Your comments boil down to: a) You have forgotten that communication existed before the Internet, and further, that Internet communication exists just fine without AOL. The obvious conclusion that using AOL is an act of terminal stupidity is left as an exercise for the reader. b) You invoke the tired, meaningless appeal to the big bad corporation stomping on the little guy. In reality, AOL can do whatever it pleases with your bits when you place them on their property, barring any prior contract to the contrary. Any legislation that stipulates otherwise is misguided. And I think both of those are absurd. ----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com

* John Kozubik [2003-08-02 19:27]:

That is incorrect. AOL owns their network, and they can respond to your arbitrary communications on their network in any way they see fit.

Unfortunately, you're correct.

Maybe they will deliver your email to your AOL subscribing friend. Maybe they will block that email. Maybe they will translate the email into French and reverse the word-order and then send it to your friend. Maybe they will print it out and mail it back to you for no reason. All of these responses are perfectly legitimate, and represent a private entity using their property in whatever way they see fit,

Yes, this is the problem I'm trying to address. Normally when Alice tries to transmit information to Bob, if Mallory decides to sabotage the communication, this is a denial of service attack, forbidden by criminal law. However, if the communication passes through Mallory's back yard, we can let the attack happen because it's on Mallory's property. At the same time, if I sabotage the city water line that passes through my property, I can be held accountable. And rightly so. Mallory should also be held accountable for blocking communications. This is what needs to change.

It amazes me how many people on this list only respect private property when it is convenient for them to do so. (For reference, see the "Tim May argues (correctly) that people can't protest in his house" and, more recently, the "Gilmore thinks airlines can't refuse him travel for any reason they see fit" threads)

There's a balance of rights, and obviously private property rights aren't going to always get priority. While they're high on my list in *some* cases, they don't top human rights. Some rights are a little more fundamental and important than private property rights. And when someone abuses their property to damage someone else, I have zero respect for their private property rights. So I'm not at all surprized that someone would perceive an inconsistency on this issue, because there are so many more important rights that have a greater bearing on peoples happiness. AOL isn't even a human, so to put the private property rights of AOL above the well-being of any human is a silly mistake. In my particular case, AOL is blocking me from talking to friends and family. I suppose I could argue that the packets I create and send are created with my private property and resources, so those packets are my property, and AOL is vandalizing my property by destroying these packets. You can argue that how you want, but the bottom line is that AOL is using their property to gain power to control who may talk to who. This is clearly an abusive use of property, and I have no tolarance for it. They need to be removed from power, and the consumers who contributed to the purchasing of their property need to be given some rights. So if you're saying that AOL's private property rights are supporting their effort to stop me from talking to my family, then of course I have very little respect for private property rights. I often see people using their private property to cause damage to others, so it's not real top on my list in these cases.

At 04:45 PM 08/02/2003 -0700, mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:

We definately need a law making it illegal for an ISP to block non-spam email. I cannot email a friend who uses AOL, and wants to receive my email, because AOL blocks it.

Fearghas pointed out the obvious workaround for this, which is that if you don't like AOL's policies on incoming or outgoing email, or your cable modem provider's policies* (which in the US are pretty much guaranteed to be lame), or the cheapest DSL provider around, but you want to keep them because they're cheap or have other features you like, then fine, just use them for Internet packet forwarding, and find yourself an email provider with policies you like. You don't need to find all of them - you only need one. There are about 10,000 ISPs in the US, last time I looked, plus hundreds to thousands of hosting and colo providers who will sell you at least a virtual host, plus myriads of customers of hosting providers who have the resources to run an email business, plus hundreds of thousands of unemployed former dot-commers who'd probably be interested in starting a business if they can't find themselves an employer, and at least 50% of them have the capital required to start a small email provider business, and at least 10% of them have enough capital to start a medium business, big enough to get going if they can find customers. That means that if just 0.01% of those people or businesses agree with you about how the email business really should be run, then there are probably a dozen or so that claim to be just what you want, and at least half a dozen that are actually competent. If just 1% of them agree with you, then there are thousands of them. Go use Google and go find them, or post a message in the appropriate newsgroups asking for them. If you *can't* fund a dozen providers like that, much less a thousand, then obviously the collective wisdom Internet community doesn't agree with your ideas well enough to justify making a law against how the other 99% or 99.99% of email providers run their businesses. Furthermore, if you think you're RIGHT, not just about how you want _some_ ISP to run a service so you can get what you want for your email, but COSMICALLY, STALLMANESQUELY RIGHT about how every ISP should be run, then don't try to convince some technically clueless Congresscritter, get off your ass and go convince people. By the time you've convinced 20% of the customers that that's what ISPs should do, and convinced 20% of the ISPs, everybody else will get the clue. And if you want to get rich while doing so, as opposed to merely popular like Stallman (:-), one of the best ways to do it is to set up a business and show the other ISPs what a REAL mail server looks like while millions of customers show up at your doorstep (hmmm, that's back to the "get off your ass" bit again), or more realistically, dozens show up which gets you enough user feedback to tweak the service and advertising to attract hundreds of users, which brings in enough cash flow to advertise to get thousands, at which point you've had trouble scaling and have redesigned to something actually scalable, which is a bit tough at $5/month * 1000 users, and then the world beats a path to your door because somebody's finally heard of you.