Re: Yahoo breaks every mailing list in the world including the IETF's

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 19 May 2014 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F151A0192 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LYpOJmHdtGZL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21A401A00EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 11:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id r20so4680011wiv.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 11:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WaQr9i7zPBBVuVoBxF4H5/wGFmzmP/llEnhufqvv3ko=; b=Jv9Zm11/2hI9WACoOyFLm1Uotdu7BNm6gPvs2A00npl04GOc70q8uXA10z1ZPfVyvJ a1laC4eTBjKshCVIyNAxBXk0x/TGWvm3sKag3hhSOpMyek5wSg+qQ0iTY/fxkhtNT7ML GSjayYptj+6QLjdMvCHAtqqXq+0000KpRrxfheQBV1WmY6UBst+0nzugg4jkLWu6vqMy uaY6JKRz34kECsxyj1GgpiajTSl/dhDZPZrSQ8PtWLiPcGlLUhHsF966wt2495ruLXt4 GGtJF/I9g7xyzNcLylBiWxxM7EzXDJ/XdkfOIg91iLn7TncdN/Q0i/pwgpG/oSoYCCH4 NKbw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.62.176 with SMTP id z16mr3984021wjr.76.1400525457966; Mon, 19 May 2014 11:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.157.9 with HTTP; Mon, 19 May 2014 11:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <537A4031.80804@dcrocker.net>
References: <53752DAC.4090305@transbay.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140516234651.0b808458@resistor.net> <CAMm+Lwi=eKby_7erZ6=MrwfSAJwt7HewALKHz38dWGp7gvGv+A@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140517225044.0bb15010@elandnews.com> <53799704.9070002@transbay.net> <54B6E91E-C033-4B1C-8A3F-0DAAD85D6FC0@gmail.com> <537A3905.6090203@acm.org> <m2oaytisqq.wl%randy@psg.com> <537A4031.80804@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:50:57 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: tzQ4km6SGQPIhaYIy28b4_7YGts
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwgu1TBcKaDRt5vB6aAPRUgSbb3fjAsyQ38e-gVThSMarA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Yahoo breaks every mailing list in the world including the IETF's
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MZ8PefYrECUygriH9IIMULrCVRA
Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, IETF Disgust <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 18:51:00 -0000

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>; wrote:
> On 5/19/2014 10:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> and if you think you are big enough, you can try to outsource the
>> problem and dump it on the rest of the network
>
>
> given the amount of confusion in this space, what is a specific example
> of anyone "outsourcing" spam on the rest of the network?
>
> i don't care whether you name names, but you need to cite technical or
> operational details that make your assertion assessable.


This is the downside of a scheme that does not have a built in
settlements scheme. There are no costs applied to resources and so
working out how to dump costs onto others is all part of the game for
the operators.

For example, Comcast vs Netflix, lets imagine they have infinite
bandwidth inside their networks, who pays for the network connection
that joins them? Somehow the packets have to get from one network to
the other and that is not cost free.

There is a lot of arguing that goes into framing the question as to
who bears what costs. And accusing other parties of 'dumping' is one
of them.


This does not mean that having built in settlements and accounting is
better, just that there are costs to taking them out. One of those
costs is that the responsibility for costs is ambiguous.

Rather than talk in these terms I think it is better to look at
questions such as:

* Are the criteria being proposed reciprocal or is someone proposing
that the rules be one thing when it suits them and something else at
other times

* Where does the ability to act lie, who benefits, who bears the costs?


So for example in the credit card payments business I have long argued
that the US govt. needs to step in and mandate use of chip and PIN
because the costs and benefits are not precisely aligned and a global
mandate is the only way to move forward.