Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament. While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of their ISP's email service. According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a different ISP the email address will optionally be his to take along, "just like" mobile providers do today with phone numbers. This new legislation makes little technological sense, and will certainly be a mess to handle operationally as well as beurocratically, but it certainly is interesting, and at least the notion is beautiful. The proposed bill can be found here [Doc, Hebrew]: http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/computers/22022010/mail.doc Linked to from this ynet (leading Israeli news site) story, here: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3852744,00.html I will update this as things evolve on my blog, here: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/ Gadi.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org> wrote:
The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament.
While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of their ISP's email service.
According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a different ISP the email address will optionally be his to take along, "just like" mobile providers do today with phone numbers.
This new legislation makes little technological sense, and will certainly be a mess to handle operationally as well as beurocratically, but it certainly is interesting, and at least the notion is beautiful.
The proposed bill can be found here [Doc, Hebrew]: http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/computers/22022010/mail.doc
Linked to from this ynet (leading Israeli news site) story, here: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3852744,00.html
I will update this as things evolve on my blog, here: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/
Gadi.
Why does this seem like a really bad idea? -james
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems: 1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been avoided. 2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying you is the real owner of the address, for example? IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address). Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here. Cheers, Rob -- Email: robert@timetraveller.org IRC: Solver Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com I tried to change the world but they had a no-return policy
On Feb 22, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been avoided.
2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying you is the real owner of the address, for example?
IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Bring back the MB or MR DNS records? (Only half a smiley.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steven Bellovin:
Bring back the MB or MR DNS records? (Only half a smiley.)
Eh, you don't want to put this information into a public database. Officially, for privacy reasons. Unofficially, to create a barrier to market entry.
Right; I was not seriously suggesting that the DNS was the right spot for it. I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. Then, of course, there's problem of upgrading the $\aleph_0$ mail senders out there to comply... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
* Steven Bellovin:
Right; I was not seriously suggesting that the DNS was the right spot for it. I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. Then, of course, there's problem of upgrading the $\aleph_0$ mail senders out there to comply...
There's already SMTP support for this, see RFC 5321, section 3.4. This has been carried over from RFC 821, which already contain the 251/551 response codes. However, this is still a public database for which you cannot charge access, so it's not the solution we're looking for.
On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steven Bellovin:
Right; I was not seriously suggesting that the DNS was the right spot for it. I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. Then, of course, there's problem of upgrading the $\aleph_0$ mail senders out there to comply...
There's already SMTP support for this, see RFC 5321, section 3.4. This has been carried over from RFC 821, which already contain the 251/551 response codes.
Thanks; I'd forgotten about those.
However, this is still a public database for which you cannot charge access, so it's not the solution we're looking for.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Steven Bellovin wrote:
I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering. Then, of course, there's problem of upgrading the $\aleph_0$ mail senders out there to comply...
See the 251 and 551 response codes first specified in RFC 788 section 3.2 and currently specified in RFC 5321 section 3.4. No-one implements them. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
smb@cs.columbia.edu:
I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering.
We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But because the response text is free-form there's no way to reliably parse out the new address. Fixing this is a bit tricky since the SMTP grammar defines <Reply-line> in a way that makes it difficult to return the sort of structed response you would need. --lyndon
On 2/22/2010 1:16 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote:
smb@cs.columbia.edu:
I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering.
We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But because the response text is free-form there's no way to reliably parse out the new address.
Fixing this is a bit tricky since the SMTP grammar defines <Reply-line> in a way that makes it difficult to return the sort of structed response you would need.
I don't think I know the details of the law, but I would guess that "address portability" does not imply "the address you have reach is not in service. The new address is....." -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
In article <fddc4e5f9aeda526d68b236708b0dbc4@yyc.orthanc.ca> you write:
smb@cs.columbia.edu:
I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering.
We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But because the response text is free-form there's no way to reliably parse out the new address.
Assuming you mean 251 and 551, the new address is in <brackets> making it straightforward to parse. There's the minor detail that nobody has, as far as I can tell, ever implemented either, but the spec's there if you want it. R's, John
On 2/22/2010 10:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <fddc4e5f9aeda526d68b236708b0dbc4@yyc.orthanc.ca> you write:
smb@cs.columbia.edu:
I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering.
We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But because the response text is free-form there's no way to reliably parse out the new address.
Assuming you mean 251 and 551, the new address is in <brackets> making it straightforward to parse.
There's the minor detail that nobody has, as far as I can tell, ever implemented either, but the spec's there if you want it.
When Somebody calls one of my "portable" telephone numbers, they don't get a message telling them they have to call some other number. The get call progress tones. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On 2/22/2010 8:42 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
When Somebody calls one of my "portable" telephone numbers, they don't get a message telling them they have to call some other number. The get call progress tones.
You are confusing what is presented to the end-user with what might be going on within the infrastructure service. Call progress tones are the former and their primary goal is to keep the user happy, providing very constrained information. Especially for mobile phones, there is often all sorts of forwarding signallying going on while you hear to tones. In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes something that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least tolerably - viable in the email infrastructure. Unfortunately, the details of the two are massively different in terms of architecture, service model, cost structures and operational skills. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 21:20 -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes something that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least tolerably - viable in the email infrastructure. Unfortunately, the details of the two are massively different in terms of architecture, service model, cost structures and operational skills.
Good point Dave; for the mobile phone industry, number portability is an endpoint thing - no harder to change than a field in a billing/accounting database (the SIM#, keeping it very simple here), for email its a WHOLE lot more. eg: would you want to start accepting huge email flows from other ASs outside your own? Even from your country's most incompetent and fat-fingered ASs? All at once, not just your normal peers? I can smell spam at huge volumes if it isn't done carefully. Any solution must be highly scale _very_ well. Potentially, globally. >eek< Restricting the argument to a few hundred lightly-used webmail-only accounts, there's very little problem. What you need is reciprocal agreements to keep web accounts active after a user migrates, or even good-old-fashioned forwarding. Maybe they politicians just noticed forwarding in their MS Outlook one day and said "Hey, this solves the a problem easily". If only..... But we're talking about )_millions_ of people here. I don't know the ISP churn rate there for domestic users, but my head hertz already thinking of the sheer volume and frequency [< Hz pun] of changes. Or, will people end up keeping 30 email accounts live, adding a new one at each change, loopholing the system every time? Even the paperwork for this could be hard to implement if they're not careful. The more I think about this, the more spam I smell cooking. Egg, beans chips and Spam. Spam Spam egg beans and spam, etc Now, it's > 05:30hrs here - as usual, I'm getting tired and my brain is running (somewhat) amok with the thought of crazy laws to come in the years ahead, but imagine an extreme scenario where we have to invent a global DNS-like system just to find a given international email account's current endpoint for delivery AND acceptance, all compliant with existing mail delivery. Or Planet-wide LDAP+RADIUS, in realtime, just for 95>99% spam flows? What are they going to "invent" next? I know I'm seeing a nightmare scenario, but politicians have very little idea of the the technology, at all. Scarily, legislation would hold ISPs to it, or pay the price in fines/surcharges/whatever. So it all does need hard engineering consideration, I think, rather than just a "it'll never work" attitude that I'm sorely tempted to take for now. I'm worrying deeper into this than necessary, I think; I'm thinking not so much about this _current_ legislation, (it has no geographical effect to me) but of copycat implementations worldwide getting more and more absurd as politicians add local spin and conditions to it. Realistically, I'm not sure that when I wake up after 8 hours sleep I'll feel better about it at all. nite, Gord PS - just though of a relevant .sig for this topic, below -- "Its easy to spout, much harder to route"
On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:06 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 21:20 -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes something that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least tolerably - viable in the email infrastructure. Unfortunately, the details of the two are massively different in terms of architecture, service model, cost structures and operational skills.
Good point Dave; for the mobile phone industry, number portability is an endpoint thing - no harder to change than a field in a billing/accounting database (the SIM#, keeping it very simple here), for email its a WHOLE lot more.
And who runs this database? Local number portability requires a new database, one that didn't exist before, It's run by a neutral party and maps any phone number to a carrier and endpoint identifier. (In the US, that database is currently run by Neustar -- see http://www.neustar.biz/solutions/solutions-for/number-administration) Figuring out how such a solution would work with email is left as an exercise for the reader. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:25:42 -0500 Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
Figuring out how such a solution would work with email is left as an exercise for the reader.
OK, let me give it a shot. How about if we allow anyone to buy a domain name of their own and then hire someone (e.g. their ISP) to manage email for it. Now when they want to change ISPs they just carry their domain with them to the new ISP. That way the only people incurring costs are the ISPs managing the domains and the central domain name registrars, two groups who are already being paid by the end user to provide the service. You're using an email address in your ISP's domain? OK, keep paying for it and forward it using the control panel facility of your ISP. If your free account doesn't have that feature then maybe you have to ask yourself what you expect for free. Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 05:39:53AM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:25:42 -0500 Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
Figuring out how such a solution would work with email is left as an exercise for the reader.
OK, let me give it a shot.
How about if we allow anyone to buy a domain name of their own and then hire someone (e.g. their ISP) to manage email for it. Now when they want to change ISPs they just carry their domain with them to the new ISP. That way the only people incurring costs are the ISPs managing the domains and the central domain name registrars, two groups who are already being paid by the end user to provide the service.
You're using an email address in your ISP's domain? OK, keep paying for it and forward it using the control panel facility of your ISP. If your free account doesn't have that feature then maybe you have to ask yourself what you expect for free.
Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the ISP hosts) over pop/imap/whatever. It's not free, but given that the average ISP seems to give you only a few MB or space, it's hardly going to break the bank.
-- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
-- --
[* Is trimming included text a lost art nowadays? *] On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:43:23+0000 Cian Brennan <cian.brennan@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote:
Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply
Sure, they are sort of like if you squint. Looked at another way they are kind of like a specific name at a street address. On the other hand, what email addresses are exactly like is email addresses. Metaphors are for illustrating something we already know, not for proving something we don't. Metaphors are like... Umm...
force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them
As soon as I see the word "force" I know I'm not going to like what follows. Why force them to use a specific server at all? My clients use my outgoing server no matter who they connect to. I think what you meant was that the old ISP should NOT be forced to continue supplying the outgoing service. That would make sense and requires no law.
to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the ISP hosts) over pop/imap/whatever. It's not free, but given that the average ISP seems to give you only a few MB or space, it's hardly going to break the bank.
If someone wants to maintain their old account for a while then what's stopping them? Cost? That's no excuse for moving the cost to the old supplier. If your online identity is important to you then pay the associated costs either with your own domain or by maintaining old accounts. My point is that everything necessary to solve the nominal problem is already in place. We don't need more laws. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
On 2/23/2010 4:43 AM, Cian Brennan wrote:
As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the ISP hosts) over pop/imap/whatever. It's not free, but given that the average ISP seems to give you only a few MB or space, it's hardly going to break the bank.
and they get shut down for TOS violations (for extra credit, whose TOS will apply?)(for more extra credit, who orders the shutdown?) they take their "portable" address somewhere else. Now what? -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:32:45AM -0600, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 2/23/2010 4:43 AM, Cian Brennan wrote:
As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the ISP hosts) over pop/imap/whatever. It's not free, but given that the average ISP seems to give you only a few MB or space, it's hardly going to break the bank.
and they get shut down for TOS violations (for extra credit, whose TOS will apply?)(for more extra credit, who orders the shutdown?) they take their "portable" address somewhere else.
We deal with this problem *already* everytime someone smtps from their ISPs mailserver with an address not provided by their ISP. If the issue is outbound mail, they can be blocked from sending outbound mail. If the issue is inbound mail, they've broken the original ISP's TOS and in both cases, can be dealt with as normal.
Now what?
-- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
-- --
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 2/23/2010 4:43 AM, Cian Brennan wrote:
As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the ISP hosts) over pop/imap/whatever. It's not free, but given that the average ISP seems to give you only a few MB or space, it's hardly going to break the bank.
and they get shut down for TOS violations (for extra credit, whose TOS will apply?)(for more extra credit, who orders the shutdown?) they take their "portable" address somewhere else.
Now what?
On 2/23/2010 10:54 AM, John Sage wrote: Unquote I'd want to trade my email address for one that doesn't trigger empty responses. Or get me banned. But he's right, we should take the discussion of operational issues somewhere else. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives get so excited about "minor, trivial" erosions of sanity; why they worry about "where this might lead".... It's been mentioned--why not "portable" street addresses. Fire departments will just have to adapt. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600):
On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives get so excited about "minor, trivial" erosions of sanity; why they worry about "where this might lead"....
It's been mentioned--why not "portable" street addresses. Fire departments will just have to adapt.
If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo, where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions. -- _________________________________________ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
On Feb 23, 2010, at 8:34 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600):
On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives get so excited about "minor, trivial" erosions of sanity; why they worry about "where this might lead"....
It's been mentioned--why not "portable" street addresses. Fire departments will just have to adapt.
If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo, where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions.
Seoul is a good example of this as well, but, no-one is even sure that building age is actually determinant in Seoul. Most of the Koreans I was working with swear that addresses are assigned by a random number generator without duplicate detection. Owen
N. Yaakov Ziskind allegedly wrote on 02/23/2010 11:34 EST:
Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600):
On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives get so excited about "minor, trivial" erosions of sanity; why they worry about "where this might lead"....
It's been mentioned--why not "portable" street addresses. Fire departments will just have to adapt.
If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo, where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions.
Simple: you separate 'mail' addresses from 'fire' addresses. Mail addresses are identifiers. Fire addresses are locators.
On 2/23/2010 8:44 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
Simple: you separate 'mail' addresses from 'fire' addresses. Mail addresses are identifiers. Fire addresses are locators.
wrong approach. simply get fire engines to have heat sensors and set their gps accordingly. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
When in Tokyo, always have a MAP showing where you want to go. On Feb 23, 2010, at 11:34 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600):
On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives get so excited about "minor, trivial" erosions of sanity; why they worry about "where this might lead"....
It's been mentioned--why not "portable" street addresses. Fire departments will just have to adapt.
If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo, where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions.
-- _________________________________________ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo, where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions.
The Soviet Union was not quite as chaotic as that, but they also didn't keep an organized system of building placement and street numbering. On this map of Kiev, it shows the building numbers so you can see how some of them are not easy to find from the street. http://wikimapia.org/#lat=50.4454261&lon=30.5302334&z=16&l=0&m=m --Michael Dillon
The suggestion to own your own domain name coupled with some consumer protection against practices which resist transferring domain names to a new provider solves this problem well enough. Maybe that's even what's slipping thru the cracks of these 10 second mechanical google translations? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On 2/23/10 1:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: ...
And who runs this database?
Local number portability requires a new database, one that didn't exist before, It's run by a neutral party and maps any phone number to a carrier and endpoint identifier. (In the US, that database is currently run by Neustar -- see http://www.neustar.biz/solutions/solutions-for/number-administration)
A circa 1998 leveraged buy out of the Communications Industry Services unit of Lockheed Martin (Warburg Pinkus et al, 71%, MidOcean Capital 14%, ABS Capital 6%, and CEO Jeff Ganek < 3%, as of 2005). There are some NANOG employer entities similarly structured, but not many, so the oddity is worth mention. Eric
On 2/23/2010 1:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Figuring out how such a solution would work with email is left as an exercise for the reader.
Well, clearly, the planet just needs to join Active Directory, and the user convert to Outlook, and use the Global Address List, and... [Sorry, I have heard that proposed by M$C** folks as a solution to just about everything else in the universe....] :-) Jeff
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 09:34 -0500, Jeff Kell wrote:
Well, clearly, the planet just needs to join Active Directory, and the user convert to Outlook, and use the Global Address List, and...
Ahem! If they (M$) were to go back to the LDAP specs, they could save a lot of time. They could even re-brand the new Global AD with a simple sed one-liner and reduce time-to-market at the same time.
[Sorry, I have heard that proposed by M$C** folks as a solution to just about everything else in the universe....]
Yeah, any more corporate/political hot air and this thread will burn up :) Gord -- Gah! Portability, schmortability. Meh
On 2/22/2010 11:20 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/22/2010 8:42 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
When Somebody calls one of my "portable" telephone numbers, they don't get a message telling them they have to call some other number. The get call progress tones.
You are confusing what is presented to the end-user with what might be going on within the infrastructure service.
Call progress tones are the former and their primary goal is to keep the user happy, providing very constrained information. Especially for mobile phones, there is often all sorts of forwarding signallying going on while you hear to tones.
I understand that--and had not considered that the global inventory of MTAs could be swapped out with stuff that could handle the redirection mechanically. I had left the telephone business by the time SS7 came along--how was that introduced? (I have assumed that it was as the #2, #4, and #5 machines and their equivalents were swapped out for ESS machines for a lot of additional reasons.)
In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes something that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least tolerably - viable in the email infrastructure. Unfortunately, the details of the two are massively different in terms of architecture, service model, cost structures and operational skills.
No kidding--something like making airlines do something railroads can do. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months. Alas, such was not their fate :) I would watch out for this idea, it might actually catch on in various places, warts and all... On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Robert Brockway <robert@timetraveller.org>wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been avoided.
2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying you is the real owner of the address, for example?
IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Cheers,
Rob
-- Email: robert@timetraveller.org IRC: Solver Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com I tried to change the world but they had a no-return policy
There are huge differences in LNP/WLNP vs. Email Address portability. Prior to LNP/WLNP, there was already SS7 which is, essentially a centralized layer of indirection for phone numbers. This was necessary in order to support multiple LECs serving the same NPA-NXX anyway. Once that was in place, LNP/WLNP was almost a no-brainer from a call routing perspective. The issue was with the administrative process and the level of ethics exhibited by some of the phone-company participants (slamming, etc.). We saw the same thing in DNS. LNP is much more like domain name portability than email address portability. We already have domain name portability and had it long before LNP/WLNP. The owner of a domain has always been able to change the NS records pointing to the authoritative DNS servers for said domain. If users care about email portability, they should simply get their own domain and move the domain around as they see fit. Given google and other email hosting providers which will trivially host your email domain and the low annual cost of registering a domain, I'm not sure why legislators would think doing it differently is a good idea. If I were an Israeli ISP and this law were to pass, I'd simply discontinue providing email service for my customers and suggest they get their email via Google, Yahoo, or other free email service. Owen On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months.
Alas, such was not their fate :)
I would watch out for this idea, it might actually catch on in various places, warts and all...
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Robert Brockway <robert@timetraveller.org>wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been avoided.
2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying you is the real owner of the address, for example?
IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Cheers,
Rob
-- Email: robert@timetraveller.org IRC: Solver Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com I tried to change the world but they had a no-return policy
Am I missing something? All the ISP has to do is to provision a pop3 / imap / webmail mailbox for that user and keep it around. On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
There are huge differences in LNP/WLNP vs. Email Address portability.
Prior to LNP/WLNP, there was already SS7 which is, essentially a centralized layer of indirection for phone numbers. This was necessary in order to support
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On 2/22/2010 11:29 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Am I missing something? All the ISP has to do is to provision a pop3 / imap / webmail mailbox for that user and keep it around.
And provide storage, support, ......, mail-bomb cleanup. Whose TOS applies? -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On 2/22/2010 9:29 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Am I missing something? All the ISP has to do is to provision a pop3 / imap / webmail mailbox for that user and keep it around.
As a permanent requirement for all accounts, including changes as the user moves around -- long-term churn is 100% within relatively few years-- and to expect all domain owners who originally host a mailbox to then do this forwarding admin and ops competently, this is going to be a serious problem. The scheme is certain to be quite unreliable along multiple axes. Worse, I had not thought of Sheldon's excellent point about negative reputation blowback on the domain owner. Per the followup comments on this, the domain owner might be able to do some things in domain name usage and IP Address assignment to mitigate this, the initial and on-going costs of getting this right and the likelihood of eliminating all blowback are problematic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Per the followup comments on this, the domain owner might be able to do some things in domain name usage and IP Address assignment to mitigate this, the initial and on-going costs of getting this right and the likelihood of eliminating all blowback are problematic.
The thing to do is to send a note to the Knesset explaining this, and telling them that you plan to send them the bills. http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months.
I'm sure they would :) I know very little of the workings of cell (or landline) phone networks but I expect if it worked the same way Internet routing does then the Telco networks would have had serious problems under the weight of rerouted calls.
I would watch out for this idea, it might actually catch on in various places, warts and all...
OTOH if it fails in a screaming heap in Israel it may show everyone else why it is a bad idea :) Cheers, Rob -- Email: robert@timetraveller.org IRC: Solver Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com I tried to change the world but they had a no-return policy
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months.
Alas, such was not their fate :)
I would watch out for this idea, it might actually catch on in various places, warts and all...
Can IP number portability be far behind? You think your routing tables are big now?! Wait till you are mandated to carry /32s for IP number portability :-) -Hank
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months.
Alas, such was not their fate :)
I would watch out for this idea, it might actually catch on in various places, warts and all...
Can IP number portability be far behind? You think your routing tables are big now?! Wait till you are mandated to carry /32s for IP number portability :-)
Don't need to harm the routing-table to do that, we have mobile-ip.
-Hank
Dude, think to the future -- /128s! On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months.
Alas, such was not their fate :)
I would watch out for this idea, it might actually catch on in various places, warts and all...
Can IP number portability be far behind? You think your routing tables are big now?! Wait till you are mandated to carry /32s for IP number portability :-)
-Hank
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Robert Brockway <robert@timetraveller.org>wrote:
IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
To me that seems reasonable. but if they do what has been suggested how long before the rest of world implements the same policy? Also wouldn't this help put the final nails in email's coffin? Also what about ISPs choosing to stop providing email services?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:24:54PM +0000, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been avoided.
Same thing applies to mobile companies. Realistically, this isn't going to be a particularly massive amount of traffic.
2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying you is the real owner of the address, for example?
This bit is slightly more difficult. All the same, you can easily figure out a password system for talking to support (with a login password, and a support password, say. Not the most secure thing possible, but in practise as good as any ISPs mail system's is likely to be.)
IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
Changing an email address takes far longer than 3 months, ime. I still get the odd mail to one I stopped using 3-4 years ago.
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Cheers,
Rob
-- Email: robert@timetraveller.org IRC: Solver Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com I tried to change the world but they had a no-return policy
-- --
There's no way to do this without some underlying forwarding... and aside from the obvious inefficiencies, bear in mind that any spam mitigation devices on the last hop that decide they are receiving spam are going to direct their wrath (reputation scores, blacklisting, greylisting, rate limiting, what-have-you) at the last forwarding hop, not at the origin. We get enough collateral damage from legitimate voluntary forwarding already. I would shudder to think of mandated, irrevocable forwarding. Jeff
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu> wrote:
There's no way to do this without some underlying forwarding... and
Forwarding SMTP traffic consumes major bandwidth resources (potentially), as the number of 'ports' eventually increases, and seems like a juicy target for many different types of potential abuses. There are major technical hurdles that should be considered, otherwise ISPs probably wouldn't care much to provide mailboxes, and instead: might simply recommend an overseas service (not subject to the port rules) for people who want e-mail. Or include "purchase of a domain name" in the price of getting e-mail service, it's just another "tax" required due to government regulations, ISP/telephone/cable subscribers are already used to those types of fees. When the end user purchases their own domain, it's up to them to transfer their own domain name and deal with all the technical issues that entails. Issues like: spam against forwarded addresses (impossible to reliably implement SPF and other sending MTA based protections). Possibility of the "porting mail server" being blacklisted (interfering with forwarding), having, sketchy connectivity, or other persistent issues, or low message size limits "No more than a 500mb attachment can be forwarded", that might have been the reason the user switched e-mail providers in the first place, so they could receive 30gb HD-DVD ISOs their friends were e-mailing them..... Resolving the destination address is what DNS is for, not what SMTP routing is for. Perhaps there is... Give every e-mail user a subdomain as in examplemailbox@examplemailbox.example.com To "port" an e-mail address, the receiving ISP then provides a domain name server for the donor ISP to publish as in... mailbox.example.com IN NS theirdns1.example2.com Use "IN NS" subdelegation to the user's new ISP. This requires the ISP to "plan for portability", by designating a subdomain for each user, and having DNS software that can handle (potentially) hundreds of thousands of permanent mailbox records. For authentication, to request a change, make it be proven that the request is coming from a legitimate authority of the host the "IN NS" record points to. Or else rewrite the SMTP specification to change how the SMTP server is selected for every single e-mail transaction (assuming the internet community actually thinks this is worthwhile).... Instead of merely performing a lookup of MX against just the host label (where MX exists), bring in Mailbox binding As in bring back RFC 883 MAILB: QNAME=mailbox@mx.example.com QTYPE=MAILB after a successful response from a QTYPE=MX query. If NXDOMAIN is returned from MAILB then proceed to contact the MX. But if MR responses arereceived from the MAILB query, then the sending MTA should switch to the recipient destination as directed. And repeat the MX and MAILB lookup process with the new destination... But the presence of a MAILB record must not imply that the e-mail address likely exists. The absence must not imply the e-mail address likely doesn't exist, either.... Otherwise spammers would be very happy. ISPs must wildcard MAILBs or have some very robust abuse-protections in DNS itself, or end-users would never want to use MAILB-based porting. -- -J
On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
I dare say. I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to work for another company and writes email from george@example.com that injures my reputation. Not a good plan at all.
1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been avoided.
Believe it or not, some people have email addresses that are not intrinsically "ISP" addresses.
2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying you is the real owner of the address, for example?
Again, it might all be within one ISP--and is still irrelevant.
IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
Governments requiring people to do things that are not good ideas often have unexpected (even if obvious) consequences. My reaction, if I were in a position to do so, would be to stop providing email addresses.
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Why is that relevant? -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:30:53AM -0600, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
I dare say.
I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to work for another company and writes email from george@example.com that injures my reputation.
Not a good plan at all.
1) Large and increasing quantity of email will be forwarded between Israeli ISPs, loading their networks with traffic that could have been avoided.
Believe it or not, some people have email addresses that are not intrinsically "ISP" addresses.
2) Every time someone changes ISP and wants to continue using this address they will need to notify their original ISP, who they may not have had a business relationship with for many years. This will be a significant operational challenge I expect. How do you confirm the person notifying you is the real owner of the address, for example?
Again, it might all be within one ISP--and is still irrelevant.
Actually, this is really simple to fix. Don't provide smtp service, only pop/imap. Then they never need to contact you. At least one Irish ISP already does something similar for ex-subscribers.
IMHO it would have been better to require the ISPs to forward the email for a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to allow the user to make relevant notifications (or just stop using an ISP bound email address).
Governments requiring people to do things that are not good ideas often have unexpected (even if obvious) consequences.
My reaction, if I were in a position to do so, would be to stop providing email addresses.
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Why is that relevant?
-- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
-- --
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>wrote:
On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
I dare say.
I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to work for another company and writes email from george@example.com that injures my reputation.
Not a good plan at all.
I think, it will apply only users's email address, not of employee of the particular ISP. --Mustafa
I dare say.
I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to work for another company and writes email from george@example.com that injures my reputation.
I suspect we are only talking about email addresses provided as part of a commercial service, not as an aspect of one's job. For example, if I have a Nextel cellphone, and then they get bought by Sprint and I decide they now suck, and I move my phone service to T-Mobile so I can get a cool new G1, then Sprint is obliged to release my phone number and let T-Mobile provide my new service using it. However, if I work for Bob's Widgets, and they fire me because I'm a slacker, I'm not expecting I get to keep the number associated with my work-issued cellphone, no matter what carrier issued it... Even if Bob's Widgets was really a carrier providing a phone on their own network... -dorn
A thing being missed here is this: A telephone number does not have an obvious affinity with personal intellectual-property-like information. (402 332-XXXX is not obviously a Northwest Bell-USWest-Quest telephone number, but at least two of them are now served by Cox. A person using a 917 NNX-XXXX number in has now turned useful information into noise, but that is not quite the same thing.) An email address that ends in example.com irrevocably ties the address user to the company Example and may in fact be affirmatively harmful beyond the technical difficulty of implementation. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
I have an idea. Everyone just get a gmail (or otherwise "neutral" account) like me.com or gmail.com or yahoo.com and be done with it. J On Feb 22, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
A thing being missed here is this:
A telephone number does not have an obvious affinity with personal intellectual-property-like information. (402 332-XXXX is not obviously a Northwest Bell-USWest-Quest telephone number, but at least two of them are now served by Cox. A person using a 917 NNX-XXXX number in has now turned useful information into noise, but that is not quite the same thing.)
An email address that ends in example.com irrevocably ties the address user to the company Example and may in fact be affirmatively harmful beyond the technical difficulty of implementation.
-- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
-- Joel Esler http://blog.joelesler.net
On 2/22/2010 12:02 PM, Joel Esler wrote:
I have an idea. Everyone just get a gmail (or otherwise "neutral" account) like me.com or gmail.com or yahoo.com and be done with it.
J
Sure and give all that information to data mining companies with no interest in privacy. No thank you. I have a gmail account that I only use to test other accounts. I don't need folks snooping in my emai as google does. C
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>wrote:
An email address that ends in example.com irrevocably ties the address user to the company Example and may in fact be affirmatively harmful beyond the technical difficulty of implementation.
IMHO, ISPs would be forged to take Google's policy of Email addresses.
xyz@gmail.com for beta-users, like you and me; while xyz@google.com for employees. But surely it will create technical implication along with many others. -- Mustafa
On 2/22/2010 11:22 AM, Mustafa Golam - wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>wrote:
An email address that ends in example.com irrevocably ties the address user to the company Example and may in fact be affirmatively harmful beyond the technical difficulty of implementation.
I don't think I said the following line--if I was demented enough to have done that, I retract it.
IMHO, ISPs would be forged to take Google's policy of Email addresses.
xyz@gmail.com for beta-users, like you and me; while xyz@google.com for employees. But surely it will create technical implication along with many others.
And I am talking about places that people that have no connection with g[.*] The key that I missed, and we have to hope the pols did not is that question of ownership. I think you will see a drying up of availability of email--which has interesting implications in the realm of unique addresses possible, for example. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:30:53 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Why is that relevant?
For the same reason that if I cited a link that lead to a page in Latvian, you'd have a hard time double-checking that my 4-line summary of the page actually matched what the page said, so you'd have to run with my 4-line summary. Google Translate actually does a reasonable job at first-pass translation of Latvian that captures the general gist of it, but it still makes me facepalm on occasion. Of course, the more critical the exact nuances, the more likely it is to egregiously screw up. "It's 17C in Riga" works fine, but the distinction between "mandate new laws" and "recommend new policies" still troubles it.
On 2/22/2010 11:19 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:30:53 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Why is that relevant?
For the same reason that if I cited a link that lead to a page in Latvian, you'd have a hard time double-checking that my 4-line summary of the page actually matched what the page said, so you'd have to run with my 4-line summary.
Google Translate actually does a reasonable job at first-pass translation of Latvian that captures the general gist of it, but it still makes me facepalm on occasion. Of course, the more critical the exact nuances, the more likely it is to egregiously screw up. "It's 17C in Riga" works fine, but the distinction between "mandate new laws" and "recommend new policies" still troubles it.
You don't note when you are taking somebody's word when they write in English. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:24:09 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
You don't note when you are taking somebody's word when they write in English.
Actually, we do. So tell me Larry - if I cited a Latvian web page, and gave a summary, would you feel comfortable blindly passing it along without mentioning the fact that you were unable to verify what the page said? What if I quoted a web page in English that was slashdotted or otherwise 404'ed by the time you tried to look at it, so you never saw the page but only what I allegedly quoted? Would you pass *that* along without notice as well? Or would you note "the page 404's for me"?
On 2/22/2010 12:42 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:24:09 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
You don't note when you are taking somebody's word when they write in English.
Actually, we do.
So tell me Larry - if I cited a Latvian web page, and gave a summary, would you feel comfortable blindly passing it along without mentioning the fact that you were unable to verify what the page said?
Yes. If I cited it would indicate that I trusted your judgment. I would expect you to feel insulted if I said that in this exceptional case I trusted you, but I didn't think that should be assumed.
What if I quoted a web page in English that was slashdotted or otherwise 404'ed by the time you tried to look at it, so you never saw the page but only what I allegedly quoted? Would you pass *that* along without notice as well? Or would you note "the page 404's for me"?
I might very well say "Valdis said...." to identify the source. I would not normal grade the quality of the reference. I'm out. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Believe it or not, some people have email addresses that are not intrinsically "ISP" addresses.
Indeed. I'm sure pretty much everyone here know why ISPs offer email services.
My reaction, if I were in a position to do so, would be to stop providing email addresses.
Yes this may well be a sensible business decision.
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Why is that relevant?
Because I don't speak Hebrew. The statement is a disclaimer that I need to rely on Gadi's summary rather than reading the thing in detail for myself, as I would have preferred to do. Cheers, Rob -- Email: robert@timetraveller.org IRC: Solver Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com I tried to change the world but they had a no-return policy
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Why on earth would you trust Gadi when you could trust me and some acquaintances at Google? <http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3852744,00.html&sl=auto&tl=en> --Michael Dillon
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:02:38 GMT, Michael Dillon said:
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's report here.
Why on earth would you trust Gadi when you could trust me and some acquaintances at Google? <http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3852744,00.html&sl=auto&tl=en
And the first paragraph renders as: "If you switch to the Knesset's bill Ronit Tirosh, Internet subscribers will be able to switch Internet providers in different email address and keep the previous society, like mobility cellular" Good enough to follow the gist of it, but by the end of the first sentence, I'm already seriously doubtful as to its ability to catch subtle nuances and details - and nuances and details are critical here. (To be fair, Google Translate *does* do a yeoman job of a mostly hopeless task. It however still has its occasional hovercraft full of eels moments, usually when the distinction between eels and kippers matters most. ;)
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:08:54AM -0500, James Jones wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org> wrote:
According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a different ISP the email address will optionally be his to take along, "just like" mobile providers do today with phone numbers.
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
actually, i think its a great idea. now the ISPs will have an actual interest in shutting down and eliminating SPAM, as it would make little economic sense to be forwarding huge amounts of email around when the bulk of it is just gonna be discarded anyways. ( i'm half joking ) -- Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +92 336 520-4504 "I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I live here and I'm going to take a leak." - Lester Pearson in 1967, during a meeting between himself and President Lyndon Johnson, whose Secret Service detail had taken over Pearson's cottage retreat. At one point, a Johnson guard asked Pearson, "Who are you and where are you going?"
Gadi Evron wrote:
The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament.
While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of their ISP's email service.
According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a different ISP the email address will optionally be his to take along, "just like" mobile providers do today with phone numbers.
Likely result: less ISPs will offer email services as part of the package, or will find some other way to shift responsibility to a third party. --Patrick
On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote:
The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament.
While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of their ISP's email service.
Just out of interest, are those ISP-tied e-mail addresses always run by the ISP, or are they occasionally outsourced in the manner of Rogers' (Canada) or BT's (UK) respective deals with Yahoo! (US)? It'd be an interesting twist if contracts between e-mail providers outside Israel and ISPs inside suddenly made this requirement for e-mail address portability leak beyond Israel's borders. Joe
On 2/22/2010 11:28 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote:
The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament.
While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of their ISP's email service.
Just out of interest, are those ISP-tied e-mail addresses always run by the ISP, or are they occasionally outsourced in the manner of Rogers' (Canada) or BT's (UK) respective deals with Yahoo! (US)?
It'd be an interesting twist if contracts between e-mail providers outside Israel and ISPs inside suddenly made this requirement for e-mail address portability leak beyond Israel's borders.
I have been wondering about that too--the Internet may be the only artifact of human existence that is generally border insensitive (with exceptions we don't need to enumerate). I note that quite a few country TLDs are hosted in other countries. Whose laws prevail? -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On 2/22/2010 9:35 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I have been wondering about that too--the Internet may be the only artifact of human existence that is generally border insensitive (with exceptions we don't need to enumerate).
Pollution. Global warming. Nuclear fallout. ... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/22/2010 9:35 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I have been wondering about that too--the Internet may be the only artifact of human existence that is generally border insensitive (with exceptions we don't need to enumerate).
Pollution.
Global warming.
Nuclear fallout.
Externalities are the last refuge of the dirigistes." -- Friedrich Hayek ;-) Cheers, RAH
Hmmm. While it's easy and reasonable to call these externalities, I suspect a good case could be made that they are not, since they affect the principals, as well as everyone else... I'm confused by the reference to archaic, structured balloons... d/ ps. "Creative misunderstanding is also a convenient refuge." -- dcrocker On 2/22/2010 12:24 PM, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/22/2010 9:35 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I have been wondering about that too--the Internet may be the only artifact of human existence that is generally border insensitive (with exceptions we don't need to enumerate).
Pollution.
Global warming.
Nuclear fallout.
Externalities are the last refuge of the dirigistes." -- Friedrich Hayek
-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
On 2/22/10 12:28 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote:
...
It'd be an interesting twist if contracts between e-mail providers outside Israel and ISPs inside suddenly made this requirement for e-mail address portability leak beyond Israel's borders.
Off-list I asked an equivalent transitive service provisioning question for a service not mentioned, but possibly associated with ISP provided email services. The technical issue area is IDNAbis and EAI for those interested in the specification aspect. I've no clear answer as yet, and my interest is semi-academic. Eric
On 2/22/10 7:28 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote:
The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament.
While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of their ISP's email service.
Just out of interest, are those ISP-tied e-mail addresses always run by the ISP, or are they occasionally outsourced in the manner of Rogers' (Canada) or BT's (UK) respective deals with Yahoo! (US)?
It'd be an interesting twist if contracts between e-mail providers outside Israel and ISPs inside suddenly made this requirement for e-mail address portability leak beyond Israel's borders.
It's an interesting question, I'm afraid I don't have the answer. Gadi.
Joe
-- Gadi Evron, ge@linuxbox.org. Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
My initial reaction: Does the law in any way imply this mail address has to be provided for free? If not then I don't see any real problem on the surface. It just means we have to offer the opportunity to keep the mail address functioning for a fee. That said, what does occur to me is what happens when we've closed someone's account for email abuse (e.g., a spammer)? That thought might be extended to non-payment, if an account is closed for non-payment is there any further obligation under this law? I assume sane heads will prevail in such cases but until then this might conceivably create a loophole for some miscreant to harass the provider. As a general rule miscreants often have no shame. I suppose the whole forwarding / spamblocking issue arises but that's not any different than any service which allows forwarding. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On 2/22/2010 12:34 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
That said, what does occur to me is what happens when we've closed someone's account for email abuse (e.g., a spammer)?
I've been thinking about that issue--spammer drop-boxes. But we are not supposed to talk about spammers here so I was going to take it up on NANAE. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
My initial reaction: Does the law in any way imply this mail address has to be provided for free?
If you had spent 10 seconds with Google Translate on the URL in Gadi's message, you'd already know.
(gosh that only took 12 hours to suggest) Obviously we're discussing a legal and regulatory system most of us here are unfamiliar with, there may be other considerations. But in the USofA a law like this would raise some serious trademark issues. When you manage a valuable trademark your lawyer lectures you about how a trademark has to represent a particular product of a particular quality or else a court can deem it invalid or even fraudulent. There are only two ways this sort of law is likely to be implemented: a) The original ISP continues to provide email for that address. b) Some other ISP provides that service. I suppose a third way, via a third party, is possible but I don't think that defuses the trademark issue. The exact mechanics are a different discussion. Since the first ISP is no longer being paid the practical solution seems to be (b), the original ISP cooperates and hands over service to the new provider somehow. But how can the original ISP be assured that email going out under what appears to be their mark (consider xxx@AOL.COM or xxx@MSN.COM) represents their product in any way the law requires? It would be a conflict and a potential dilution of one's mark. Particularly, as others have suggested, if that product implies availability, spam filtering, support, storage, recovery in the event of lost storage, TOS, etc. In contrast, a phone number has no such trademark implications for the provider, one generally doesn't say "oh, 555-555-1234, an AT&T phone number!" Perhaps it's possible to know this, but it's not common knowledge, it doesn't generally represent the public's view of the AT&T mark. I don't think the law would be workable in the US. I'd be surprised if the law doesn't run into similar problems in Israel. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
-----Original Message----- From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:55 AM To: John Levine Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
My initial reaction: Does the law in any way imply this mail address has to be provided for free?
If you had spent 10 seconds with Google Translate on the URL in Gadi's message, you'd already know.
(gosh that only took 12 hours to suggest)
Obviously we're discussing a legal and regulatory system most of us here are unfamiliar with, there may be other considerations.
But in the USofA a law like this would raise some serious trademark issues.
When you manage a valuable trademark your lawyer lectures you about how a trademark has to represent a particular product of a particular quality or else a court can deem it invalid or even fraudulent.
There are only two ways this sort of law is likely to be implemented:
a) The original ISP continues to provide email for that address.
b) Some other ISP provides that service.
I suppose a third way, via a third party, is possible but I don't think that defuses the trademark issue.
The exact mechanics are a different discussion.
Since the first ISP is no longer being paid the practical solution seems to be (b), the original ISP cooperates and hands over service to the new provider somehow.
But how can the original ISP be assured that email going out under what appears to be their mark (consider xxx@AOL.COM or xxx@MSN.COM) represents their product in any way the law requires?
It would be a conflict and a potential dilution of one's mark.
Particularly, as others have suggested, if that product implies availability, spam filtering, support, storage, recovery in the event of lost storage, TOS, etc. Just mention that this law is above the other law regarding Trademarks and you will need to follow this law. What if a domain get listed because a new
And now think about it with SPF records (and checks for SPF records). All outgoing mail should also go via the OLD provider. Including domainnames (for email) would be the solution for this. In other cases only (a) seems to be available. Maybe a payment between the old and new provider is the solution for it. How to do this if the old provider is stopping? It is a realistic possibility that they stop. provider doesn't use a spam filter on outgoing messages, how to get delisted for the old provider? Some lists might be based on the from header in emails.
In contrast, a phone number has no such trademark implications for the provider, one generally doesn't say "oh, 555-555-1234, an AT&T phone number!" Perhaps it's possible to know this, but it's not common knowledge, it doesn't generally represent the public's view of the AT&T mark.
I don't think the law would be workable in the US.
I'd be surprised if the law doesn't run into similar problems in Israel.
Regards, Mark
participants (39)
-
Barry Shein -
Cian Brennan -
Curtis Maurand -
D'Arcy J.M. Cain -
Dave CROCKER -
Dorn Hetzel -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Florian Weimer -
Fred Baker -
Gadi Evron -
gordon b slater -
Hank Nussbacher -
James Hess -
James Jones -
Jeff Kell -
Jim Mercer -
Joe Abley -
Joel Esler -
Joel Jaeggli -
John Levine -
John Sage -
Larry Sheldon -
Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) -
Mark Scholten -
Michael Dillon -
Mustafa Golam - -
N. Yaakov Ziskind -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick Giagnocavo -
R.A. Hettinga -
Richard Barnes -
Rob Pickering -
Robert Brockway -
Scott Brim -
Shane Ronan -
Steven Bellovin -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Tony Finch -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu