On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
the intention of the sender is immaterial. If intentions mattered, every clueless marketing exec that spammed a couple hundred thousand people would be instantly forgiven because he/she was "just trying to do business."
Intentions matter not at all. Only results of said traffic, the consequences of which are borne entirely by the receiver. If the receiver doesn't want it, the receiver should not have to receive it. Unless you're willing to come out and state that being connected to the Internet is a de facto agreement to receive anything and everything somebody wishes to send you (ghosts of open relay arguments, anybody?)
You have signed a de facto agreement to pay for traffic you receive, whether or not you intended to receive it. So if you do not wish to pay for traffic you did not intend to receive, intention matters. Further, the receiver already has the role of deciding whether or not to receive the traffic. The sender cannot force the receiver to listen, it does so voluntarily by default. You both pay for service, both providers are compensated, so all things are equal? No wait, the sender is getting free advertising. Intention matters. Either the settlment model is wrong, or the technology is incapable, or both. "Play nice" policies are only going to take us so far. Enforcing policy at the senders upstream is just one possibilty, there are many others.
Regards, James
-- Scott Francis darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t Systems/Network Manager sfrancis@ [work:] t o n o s . c o m UNIX | IP networks | security | sysadmin | caffeine | BOFH | general geekery GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui