nanog mailing list archives
Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?]
From: Todd Vierling <tv () duh org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:47:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote:
The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different model, with only a few big actors.I don't know who these proponents are, that you refer to. However, in my earlier message I quite clearly described a model that allows for millions of independent email servers organized in roughly 3 levels of hierarchy and I described how it could be done so that email peering IS NOT LIMITED to a few big actors.
You mean like ucbvax? (If you don't know what that means, you have no business talking about Internet e-mail.) Seriously, the mess you're proposing was already done. It didn't scale. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP : ===== People often published compound bang addresses using the { } convention (see glob) to give paths from several big machines, in the hopes that one's correspondent might be able to get mail to one of them reliably (example: ...!{seismo, ut-sally, ihnp4}!rice!beta!gamma!me). Bang paths of 8 to 10 hops were not uncommon in 1981. ===== You're lost in the past. Study history and stop repeating it back to us. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv () duh org> <tv () pobox com> <todd () vierling name>
Current thread:
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?], (continued)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Michael . Dillon (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Niels Bakker (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Michael . Dillon (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Steve Gibbard (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Joe Abley (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Robert E . Seastrom (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Michael . Dillon (Jun 17)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Todd Vierling (Jun 19)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Jon Lewis (Jun 19)
- Informal email peering (was: Email peering) Dave Crocker (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Todd Vierling (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Joe Maimon (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Steven M. Bellovin (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Todd Vierling (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] william(at)elan.net (Jun 16)
- Re: Email peering Michael . Dillon (Jun 17)
- Re: Email peering Joe Maimon (Jun 17)
- Re: Email peering Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 17)
- Re: Email peering Dave Crocker (Jun 18)
- Re: Email peering Steven M. Bellovin (Jun 17)
- Re: Email peering Mike Leber (Jun 17)