Open Relay == Bad? (Was Re: [oclug] Rogers sucks)

[Brad Barnett]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:02:03 -0500
Kevin Everets <kevin at everets.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 10:02:03PM -0500, Brad Barnett wrote:
> 
> > He certainly makes some good points, but there is some flawed
> > reasoning involved as well.
> 
> I'm not so sure about that... his points are quite lucid, and he's
> making the case for being a "common carrier".  Spam is like
> telemarketing (which you point out in your analogy), and the ISP
> (toad.com in this case) is like Bell Canada.  Bell Canada has no right
> to force filtered calls on me.  To say that they are at fault for
> running an "open phone switch" that just allows anyone to make a call
> to me would be ridiculous.  There should still be ways of dealing with
> the telemarketers (laws, as you mentioned, about calling people at
> obscene hours), but those should put the blame where it exists: on the
> perpetrators themselves and not on the network that allowed them to do
> what they did.
> 

This isn't taken as a poke at you Kevin, but next time please read my
whole message first _then_ respond to points as you see fit. ;)  You've
nicely responded to every paragraph I've written, but taken those
paragraphs out of context, separate from the whole.

Anyhow, my entire point in the previous email was that laws are there for
a reason and if it isn't illegal, the ISP shouldn't be restricting your
service.  You seem to support this as you indicate in your reply. 
Anything else is a form of mob rule, enacted by self appointed vigilantes.
 When addressing the point of legislation and spam, I was trying to get at
the following : 

1) eventually laws will be passed to outlaw or control spam.  These laws
may make an open relay illegal, and hopefully will.

2) Anyone  _needs_ to be liable if they provide an open relay for these
people, however ONLY if the law stipulates so.  That means that if the ISP
has a misconfigured relay, it can be sued and found liable, especially if
negligence is shown.

3) The same needs to be true of software authors/vendors.  If they have
huge gaping holes and bugs that cause their software to perform outside of
the law, they need to be liable.