Thank you Andy for making my points so clearly. See inline comments On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:30:11 -0500 (EST), Andy Dills wrote:

...

Under 2.1, Form of Practice, where you finally talk about what it is you're propsing: "The withdrawal of IR (use of blocklists, cancellation of routing, withdrawal of IP addresses and domain names) may in its early months of adoption split the Internet into oceans of purity and islands of

Some comments, after reading the draft: pollution. As withdrawal expands, polluters will be pushed into ever smaller and less connected domains, which grow ever more blocked. This cumulative process will end quickly, with residual polluted islands populated by those lacking a need to communicate with oceans of purity."

...

That's the primary flaw. This will never get implemented due to the cavalier attitude towards collateral damage.

Whether it is implemented is not my business. I am the doctor diagnosing the illness and prescribing the scientifically validated cure, and warning the patient of the quack remedies on the market. My job is done now (almost, I just have to reformat and submit as I-D, maybe a few more hours). By way of background, I wrote a very famous book (War Comes to Long An) on a matter of transcendent national importance, in 1972. It also (by inference) prescribed some medicine. It got a lot of criticism at the time, but it is now the canonical analysis of that problem, used in universities and military/diplomatic training institutions worldwide. It took several years for this to happen. I know, from talks with friends in the White House, that MANY people are alive today who would be dead had I not spent three years of my life writing that book. I have spent three years developing this draft BCP. It is a cure, in fact the ONLY cure, for the spam menace. It will work. Whether people want to take the cure is up to you and your colleagues. I am just a drive-by spamming victim who got sick of the pointless debate and decided to analyse the problem based on what I know of technology and of human behavior (having studied both professionally; I am trained as a social scientist from a well-known institution in Cambridge Massachusetts but have spent most of my recent adult life in technology; I was in the Army signal corps before that). This is just a charitable effort on my part. I am not selling anything. My apologies for the personal discussion which I would not ordinarily go into, but it is germane here so you all can understand I have no vested interest in pushing software or hardware. This effort is completely unrelated to my life work except in the sense that I am a spam victim.

Like you said, you need everybody to jump at the same time. Unfortunately, there is almost zero chance of that happening

It's up to you people on this list, not me. This is the medicine; if you want to get well, take it.

that IPv6 will ever replace IPv4 (at least until we truly run out of address space...which is looking less likely with time). To ostracize those who disagree by lableing them abuse-supporters is to diminish your chances even further. You'll end up with an island of purity in the middle of an ocean of pollution..."and the cumulative process will end quickly" when your customers come to your NOC with pitchforks and shotguns. In the end, we're here to serve the customer, not the other way around.

There are lots of well-run networks that don't accept inbound spam and don't enable outgoing spam. Their customers are happy and they are making money. The firms bankrupt or circling the drain are the ones with dishonest managements who committed financial fraud and/or ramped their shares based on revenue streams from spammers, like .. whoops! I almost said it again, sorry, I got spanked last time for mentioning the industry's leading US spam-enabler.

Remember, it's a fine line. The network operators don't advocate abuse;

Some do and gain lots of revenue from it. See the sad truth at <www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf>

the business end of cash-desperate networks are the driving force in this industry, not us.

You have elegantly stated the Environmental Polluter business model: internalize the revenue streams from the customers, and externalize the losses imposed by spam-enabling actions and negligence. GE used to work on that business model. They are no longer dumping effluents into the ground in Pittsfield Mass. This could happen to the Internet! (with your help--go for it!) Kind regards to all Jeffrey Race