The customer has a choice of providers and can choose a provider that doesn't use MAPS. When I used to run an ISP, we had two different mail systems. 1 for those that wanted everything, and 1 for those that wanted things filtered. Providers should inform their customers that they are using some level of filtering. Seems most of them are, and that most customers want it. Just driving around the Bay Area one can see signs that promote Spam Free Email from various providers.. On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Mike Batchelor wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Vixie said:
That way lies madness. Senders have no such rights, and the determination of a message's legitimacy lies with recipients (and perhaps infrastructure owners) NOT senders.
How is the recipient of a message that has been blocked before he sees it to decide whether it was legitimate?
Since most of what MAPS is about is reducing complaints from customers to their ISP, and thereby reducing support costs, I guess the question is answered. If no one complains, there is no problem. Since no one can complain about unseen messages, that means that collateral damage is not really a problem, since it does not increase support costs.
A sender's rights are determined by their contract with their ISP, and an ISP's rights are determined by their contracts with their peers and transit providers.
And with their customers, who are the ones that are sending and receiving all this email in the first place.
- --- "The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" - Kosh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO9yOMEksS4VV8BvHEQKMmgCdGnIQtSxDbPyYDxViE2qtQuCqFMIAn1qa Bd9d5t903V0vMu4vF1h8Ebmg =kjig -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----