[e2e] Fwd: Camel's nose in the tent

[Baoqing Ye]

David,

  Where did you hear about the "official policy"?

-Baoqing-

"David P. Reed" wrote:

> Verizon DSL has instituted recently an official policy of blocking all
> email that a user sends that does not have a line in the header that says
> it is sent from verizon.net or bellatlantic.net.  This is apparently
> because they want to "stop spam", but has a number of additional effects
> (such as creating a "walled garden" for email origination).
>
> It's yet another case where a violation of the "end-to-end" design
> principle that was embodied in the original SMTP is being accepted and
> breaking the Internet's ability to innovate, and also attacking free speech
> (I realize that not everyone in the USA or world believes in free speech,
> but innovation at the edges is a value that the technical community also
> shares, whatever their political persuasion).
>
> I wrote the following to Farber's IP list, hoping to encourage some
> effective response against ISPs who would otherwise adopt this technology
> (know who the middlebox vendors for this are?).  Any thought on who in the
> IETF/IAB can make a statement on not violating layers like this?  The free
> speech issue is well covered, but the innovation-blocking issue is
> something the technical community ought to take an independent interest
> in.  Perhaps the problem is that the technical community is now too tied to
> income sources that don't want to offend carriers who want to mess up the
> architecture?
>
> Scary.
>
> >Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:00:56 -0400
> >To: farber at cis.upenn.edu, ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com
> >From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com>
> >Subject: Camel's nose in the tent
> >
> >Manny's observations about the "return address block" is different than
> >the port 80 issue (they have some kind of argument to block because the
> >presumption that 80 means "server" is accepted by people, even though
> >technically not true!)
> >
> >1. There has never been a requirement that the contents of an SMTP
> >"message" be formatted in any particular way.  The SMTP network is
> >supposed to route messages based entirely on information exchanged in the
> >protocols, not the headers.  Thus the Verizon policy is a technical
> >violation of the SMTP protocol standard, and has impacts such as not
> >allowing innovation in the structure of the headers that used to be only a
> >peer-level agreement between client email programs, not a function of the
> >SMTP service.  Thus, one could use SMTP in the past to transmit fully
> >encrypted messages.
> >
> >2. This is the "nose under the tent" for transport services to start
> >inspecting message content.  By reading headers of messages and assigning
> >meaning to them, providers are starting down a slippery slope to
> >interfering with speech.  My instructions to a user agent on the receiver
> >machine about who sent the message can be viewed as my business (perhaps I
> >want anonymity by using a pen name?).  But worse, this sets a precedent
> >for doing things like, for example, inspecting the subject: field for
> >obnoxious words that might offend the recipient, etc.  While AOL has in
> >the past been held to a standard that they are liable for the obnoxious
> >behavior of their users, this has been partly due to the idea that AOL
> >contracted with users to "read their mail" for protection.
> >
> >If this process of intruding inside the envelope to read the mail contents
> >is not resisted vigorously, we will suffer in two ways, equally important:
> >
> >Innovation in email content protocols will be held hostage to Verizon and
> >its kin, who will block innovations that do not serve their goals.  This
> >is the proper domain for IETF and the IAB to speak strongly and with one
> >voice on this issue.
> >
> >The right to free speech will be slowly eroded, as Verizon and its kin are
> >held to be responsible for the content of messages sent.
> >
> >At the moment, I am freely sending my mail through AT&T's SMTP servers,
> >despite the fact that my email is received at Interland.  Should AT&T
> >adopt the Verizon policy, my speech will be somewhat silenced.
> >
> >- David
> >--------------------------------------------
> >WWW Page: http://www.reed.com/dpr.html
>
> - David
> --------------------------------------------
> WWW Page: http://www.reed.com/dpr.html