nanog mailing list archives
Re: Email peering
From: Michael.Dillon () btradianz com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:44:12 +0100
Similar concept, same scaling problems; it just hides the explicit
routing
from the user (as would any modern "peering" system, presumably).
Then you are presuming wrongly. Nowhere in what I wrote have I suggested any changes in the existing email technology. I am not suggesting that we drop SMTP in favour of your favourite old dusty protocol. I am suggesting that we need a system of accountability for people who run Internet email servers based on contracts and SLAs, i.e. peering agreements. I haven't specified how it would be implemented because I expect that the companies negotiating such agreements would specify this in some kind of operational best-practices document. One way that it COULD be implemented is for people accepting incoming email on port 25 to check a whitelist before accepting email. Only operators who have signed a peering agreement would be on the whitelist. Presumably, the whitelist would be served up by your regional association and they would have some means of relaying queries (or synchronizing their database) with the other 4 regions. Let's face it, people have described a lot of best practices for running SMTP based email services but there has never been a concerted effort to implement these in some methodical way. It has always been a case of preaching to the converted at NANOG or on some lists. And it just does not scale! --Michael Dillon
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......?] 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)
- Re: Email peering John Levine (Jun 18)
- Re: Email peering Mike Leber (Jun 18)
- Re: Email peering John Levine (Jun 18)
- Re: Email peering Alexei Roudnev (Jun 19)
- Re: Email peering Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 20)