Re: Swen and Earthlink

From: N. Miller (koko_at_soko.invalid)
Date: 09/25/03 

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:30:37 -0700

In article <f7acb.4576$ai7.1485@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
pweldon@mindspring.com says...
> How can SBC Global charge extra to fulfill their implicit contract to
> provide reliable e-mail service? Seems like a good reason to switch to an
> ISP or e-mail service provider that does not charge extra.
>
>
It turns out that I was mis-informed. SBC does not charge extra for viral
filtering, they simply do not perform viral filtering. Also, the last time I
looked at the TOS, there is an explicit "as is" rider to the service. My
guess is, all ISPs provide their services "as is", which is explicitly *NOT*
an implied promise to provide reliable services!

There are two lines of though in this matter. There are experience mail
system administrators who believe that the burden of maintaining a virus-
free computer lies with the owners of the computers. There are other
administrators who believe in taking necessary steps to preserve the
integrity of their networks. Who is right?

In light of a postal analogy about delivering explosives, and of another
analogy to Public Health Services, and allowing Typhoid Mary to run free to
infect the public, I have changed my tune, somewhat, and decided that the
"scan all email for viral code" is the proper approach. However, to do this
properly requires consideration of the types of accounts which people have.

Most users have residential services, which are, usually, prohibited by TOS
from operating servers. Under these terms, residential accounts should have
port 25 redirected to the provider's SMTP services, where outbound scanning
should be done. Some kind of threshold of deleted attachments should be in
place, so the provider can contact the owner of an infected computer and
tell them to clean up in x hours, or be disconnected from the Internet. And
if you, like me, run a mail server from home, well; SBC does have
authenticating SMTP servers, and I use one as a 'smarthost'. I have no
problem sending mail from my domain, even though it isn't an SBC domain.

For users with business accounts, pay attention to abuse complaints
addressing viral infections, and give notice to those users who seem to be
spewing viral code.

Scanning incoming mail should be a user-selectable option, except where the
provider is dealing with a customer who repeatedly gets infected; in that
case, scanning incoming messages for viruses is permanently done. 

-- 
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint