nanog mailing list archives
Re: Email peering
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 () dcrocker net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:23:08 -0700
Folks,
DNSWL -- this is already being done. It is not widely viewed as being in any way similar to a peering concept. What would be more similar would be a consortium of large providers providing such a whitelist. That would be something I would welcome.
To repeat what John Levine said, and that I suggested in my posting "Informal email peering" please take a look at CSV <http://mipassoc.org/csv> as a candidate mechanism for determining the operations-related identity to assess, and for a means of querying a third party to obtain an assessment. CSV is simple, uses efficient DNS records, and mostly importantly uses operations identities rather than content origination identities. Several schemes that have some popularity use a path registration approach (SPF, Sender-ID) which ties an origination identifier (rfc2822.From, rfc2822.Sender, or rfc2821.MailFrom) to the MTAs along the transmission path. For you ops folks, think of this as requiring pre-registration of all source routes to all recipients. For you architecture freaks, think of it as a really spiffy layer violation. By contrast, CSV uses identities that are directly tied to the MTA that is being assessed. Once you have a validated identity, you need a scalable means of assessing it. The combinatorial explosion with email makes pair-wise agreements unscalable. Hence, some form of third-party assessment schemes is needed. And that is what motivated the idea for <http://mipassoc.org>. Develop a common set of best practises, and have organization commit to supporting them. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
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......?] 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)
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?] Michael . Dillon (Jun 17)
- Message not available
- Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's SenderIDAuthentication......?] Ben Hubbard (Jun 17)
- Re: Email peering Michael . Dillon (Jun 17)