RE: Lazy network operators

[<daryl () introspect net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> Behalf Of Michael.Dillon () radianz com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:18 AM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Lazy network operators
[...]
> A tier 1 provider in the SMTP mesh does not have to
> be the same thing as a tier 1 provider in the
> physical mesh. See the structure of the NNTP mesh
> over the years for examples. I fully expect to see
> specialized email peering providers arise who will
> have SMTP peering arrangements with the large email
> site like AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail etc. and who then arrange
> peering with large numbers of smaller sites who either
> cannot find SMTP peering locally or who want to
> be assured of alternate SMTP routes in the event
> their main peer cannot reach all destinations.

Michael, I picked your message simply as a representative of this
viewpoint.  But can you ro someone who shares this idea please explain
to me how this model accounts for compromised hosts sending their spam
through the default MTA or using the default MTA setting son the host?
After all of this trouble to get such a system in place, it's going to
take the spammers 1/100th of the effort the operation community has put
in to thwart the system.

But maybe I'm wrong.  I'd love to be wrong on this one.

Daryl G. Jurbala
BMPC Network Operations
Tel (NY): +1 917 477 0468 x235
Tel (MI): +1 616 608 0004 x235
Tel (UK): +44 208 792 6813 x235
Fax: +1 215 862 9880
INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ

PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp