Re: [mail-ng] Anonimity and cost

[J C Lawrence <claw@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:49:11 -0600 
Dustin D Trammell <dtrammell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I do not see any problem with allowing anonymous mail to be injected
> into a new system.  However, it must be tagged and easily identifiable
> as such, so that sites may state a policy such as "We don't accept
> anonymous messages here."  

A direct implication of my earlier consent/policy post is that such
rules would be an amalgam of both site-wide and per-end-user rules.  

> Removing the ability to spoof source addresses so that the entity
> sending the "anonymous" mail looks like someone else, I don't see that
> we have a problem.  Many sites may be fine with accepting anonymous
> messages.  Sites that accept postings for newsgroups may.  Many will
> not.  The choices available with which to deal with anonymous
> messaging is what we need to facilitate, not whether or not it is
> allowed to happen.

The fact that it is an amalgam becomes critical for ISPs and other
service deployments as it allows them the cost savings of rejecting
anonymous mail by default, but then also allowing anonymous mail to be
accepted for the specific end users that request it.

-- 
J C Lawrence
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@xxxxxxxx               He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.