nanog mailing list archives
Re: SMTP authentication for broadband providers
From: Alex Bligh <alex () alex org uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:42:59 -0000
--On 13 February 2004 09:27 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
Yeeee-Haw! A return to the Old West of bangbaths and pathalias.
*Not* that I think bilateral peering for SMTP is a great idea, but: a web of trust (A trusts B, B trusts C) does not necessarily mean the mail has to traverse the route of the web of trust (i.e. if A can establish B trusts C, then why not accept the mail directly from C if all B is going to do is forward it in essence unaltered). Perhaps this is no different from having someone DNS sign some form of inverse MX record saying "this is my customer and they shalt not spam you or lo the wrath of my abuse department shall descend on them and cut them off", and people not accept mail from those without that an inverse MX record signed by someone they trust, someone who someone they trust trusts (etc.). Alex
Current thread:
- Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse, (continued)
- Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse Mark Turpin (Feb 17)
- Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse Daniel Reed (Feb 17)
- Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse Mark Turpin (Feb 17)
- RE: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse Roy (Feb 17)
- RE: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse Nicole (Feb 17)
- RE: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse Roy (Feb 17)
- Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse matt (Feb 17)
- Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse william(at)elan.net (Feb 17)
- Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse John Palmer (Feb 17)
- Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse JC Dill (Feb 17)
- Re: SMTP authentication for broadband providers Alex Bligh (Feb 13)