nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators
From: Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:50:42 +0300
Adrian Chadd wrote:
Could the MTA´s run something similar to MPLS so they could reduce the hop count and "funnel" the email though instead of storing and forwarding it hop by hop? Maybe some users would then be willing to pay more for the extra complexity and it would also skyrocket job security.I wonder how this is going to affect SMTP mail handling as it stands - for example, how many 'hops' will there be between this university's mail gateway and, say, MIT's mail gateway(s)? Will people start playing header rewrite tricks so MTAs around the world don't bomb out with "exceeded hop count" ? "Just one hop!" games, a la IP routing in the final stages of last century, may rear its ugly head again.
Pete
Current thread:
- Re: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- Re: Lazy network operators Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Eric Brunner-Williams (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Eric Brunner-Williams (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Rob Nelson (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Michael . Dillon (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Adrian Chadd (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Andrew - Supernews (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators JC Dill (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators JC Dill (Apr 14)