Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPF?

[Seth Breidbart <sethb at panix.com>]

rogerk at queernet.org wrote:
> Quoting Seth Breidbart <sethb at panix.com>:
>> That is, you claim that an existing customer or employee should have
>> the ability to force its provider or employer to continue doing what
>> it used to?
>
> Employee?  Of course not.  Customer?  Of course.  They're customers.

So?  When my favorite food store decided to stop carrying one of the
items I really liked, what recourse did I have?  I was a customer
there.

Why should an ISP be any different?

> When a change is this significant, sure, at least as a starting
> point.  If you're going to inconvenience them by changing the rules
> in so substantial a way, at least a discussion of compensation is in
> order.

What compensation?  "Starting in two weeks, we're going to filter spam
according to our filters."

A little notice, if feasible, sure.

Not changing the terms until the paid-for period (typically a month)
is finished, sure.

>> Who gets to pay whatever costs that imposes?  Those costs
>> can be quite large if they include the ability to determine on a
>> per-user basis whether spam will be filtered, in addition to the
>> relatively smaller costs imposed by not filtering.
>
> Move them to a server that observes the current rules.  Work, yes, but not
> grossly so.  That's just one option, of course.

How do you get some email addresses onto one server and others onto a
different server, when they're all in the same domain?

If 3 users want all their spam, do those 3 share the cost of the new
server?

Seth

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg