Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:58:18 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: oceanare pte ltd <oceanare@pacific.net.sg>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: matthew dillon Message-ID: <3E4858BA.79ED0126@mindspring.com> References: <200302102159.h1ALxO126845@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > > Do you unsubscribe from mailing lists you merely monitor for > > interesting content, rather than subscribing to them, when some > > jerk fills up your POP3 maildrop because they have an axe to > > grind, and, as a result, mail which you consider "important", > > compared to the list traffic, bounces? > > I don't use POP3, precisely because of that reason. Do you? What you do or not do is irrelevent to the fact that some people can not obtain service that doesn't involve their email piling up somewhere it has to be downloaded from. In addition, not everyone can run a mail server, for lack of IPv4 address space, and due to service provider restrictions on the ability to run servers on their network connections due to active firewalling to create an artificial tiering of pricing, while avoiding the oversight of the PUC by not seperating it into a new tarrif group. > > People who advocate "receiver filtering" (either of the active > > variety, or of the "just ignore" variety) is the answer to all > > SPAM-like problems apparently do not understand the realities > > of many people using pull-based rather than push-based email > > transports. > > We do understand those realities, which is why we contend that > pull-based systems aren't the correct technology to use for receiving > randomly ubiquitous content such as humans are likely to generate. Until the technologies are no longer being deployed against new users, live in the world as it is, not as you wish it were. > I recognize that some people are unable to leave their POP client > connected 24/7 with "leave mail on server" unchecked and with > a scan rate of "once every 2 minutes". Perhaps a digested form > of the mailing list or a web browsable archive should exist for > those people's needs? The problem is that a denial of service attack can be successful, even in that case, by using a sufficiently large message size, or a sufficiently high message frequency, or a combination of the two (e.g. the recent troll repetitive mailings that cause this thread to be started were once-a-second, from my reading of the email headers). How is it that you suggest people defend against people with bigger pipes for shoving messages out than people have for messages coming in? In the limit, the same argument will apply to push-based systems, eventually, since you can not RED-queue persistent TCP connections, only incoming connection requests. > The technology is supposed to serve you, not dictate how you > are supposed to communicate. Feeel free to correct it, and every exisitng instance of it on the Internet, and then, after you have done that, get back to me, and I may indeed be willing to agree with your arguments. NB: If you are going to deal with this, then please, at the same time, fix the FIN-WAIT-2 problem, which is caused by a protocol design error in TCP, which requires two responses to a single request, with no way for the requester to re-request the first of the two responses. > > Please understand the technology involved before telling people > > how they should use it. > > Please understand the people involved before attempting to force > people to behave based on a particular choice of technology. =) The technology used dictates the permissable behaviours of the people using it; whether you like that fact or not, it is nonetheless true. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E4858BA.79ED0126>