[e2e] Fwd: Camel's nose in the tent
day at std.com
Fri Aug 10 16:29:43 PDT 2001
At 4:16 PM -0600 8/10/01, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com>
> > ...
> > As a matter of law, it is not their option to block mail based on arbitrary
> > criteria. In particular, the First Amendment does apply here, as do a
> > variety of telecommunications laws.
>Telecommunications law perhaps, but certainly not the 1st Amendment
>to the U.S. Constitution. If anything, it preserves the right of
>ISP's to do whatever nonsense they want with their printing presses,
>because it restricts the laws that Congress may pass and so what
>government can do, not what people can running SMTP relays can do.
>Consider that one of the standard challenges to must-carry provisions
>of cable TV systems is an appeal to the First Amendement.
Ahh, yes and there is the rub!
> > As a matter of contract, ISPs claim to offer "Internet service" not
> > "whatever I feel like". ...
> > about fraud ...
>I agree about the fraud in such as AOL's interception proxies and UUNet's
>port 25 filtering, but given the millions who buy software that purports
>to be reasonably safe and secure from Microsoft, that seems moot. (I'm
>seeing 1 CodeRed hit/minute/host and I'm confident that will continue
>indefinitely, as new versions without cutoffs are distributed.)
>But that is all off-topic.
>I think the following isn't:
> > As a matter of engineering practice, you are wrong. SMTP provides an
> > end-to-end guarantee that the contents will be preserved intact (modulo
> > adding Received: lines at the front).
> > ...
>The last time this topic came up, I though the arbiters of the definition
>of the end-to-end principle had more or less agreed that it is about
>the connection from one IP host to the next, and that application
>gatewaying, translating, and so forth including SMTP relaying is outside
>the stratosphere of the end-to-end principle.
>If I'm wrong about that, then what are the ends? Is the reflector
>for this mailing list part of the end-to-end (ends?) path for this
>message? If it passes through a gateway to an X.400 system, is the
>entire path from either calcite.rhyolite.com or boreas.isi.edu to the
>X.400 MTA includig the SMTP-X.400 gateway subject to the end-to-end
>principle? Are the MUA's part of the path covered by the end-to-end
>principle? Given the necessary crazinesses in MUA's and things like
>SMTP-X.400 gateways, I hope not.
>Besides, the practices if not theories of such as automatic quoted-
>printable conversions make talk of SMTP guaranting intact contents
>a little strange.
Actually, my understanding of SMTP is that it is intended to be as
much an application relay as X.400? No. I would agree. The ends
were the ends of a transport layer connection, i.e. TCP.
More information about the end2end-interest