nanog mailing list archives
Re: question on ptr rr
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () vix com>
Date: 10 Feb 2004 00:03:45 +0000
Imagine a world in which only ISPs run SMTP servers which only talk directly to other servers with which they have an offline relationship.70K user. 40M .coms. N*M. Gee thanks. That's too damned many relationships to negotiate. And I think we learned our lesson with 'ADMD= PRMD=', didn't we?
it's a real shame that exponential growth can only occur in wormnets, and that there's no such thing as transitive trust amongst humans. otherwise we could build a trusted "smtp web" out of multilateral trust relationships and existing X.509 technology, and it would become possible to know from the SSL whether an smtp initiator has signed a loyalty oath similar to your own, and if they then misbehave it would be possible to find out who let them in and prune the whole branch. six degrees of separation and all that. but i guess i'm still a few years ahead of myself on this one. -- Paul Vixie
Current thread:
- Re: question on ptr rr, (continued)
- Re: question on ptr rr Andrew - Supernews (Feb 08)
- Re: question on ptr rr Lou Katz (Feb 08)
- Re: question on ptr rr Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 08)
- Re: question on ptr rr Michael . Dillon (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Niels Bakker (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Robert E. Seastrom (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Daniel Senie (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Randy Bush (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Arnold Nipper (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Paul Vixie (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Paul Vixie (Feb 09)
- Re: question on ptr rr Michael . Dillon (Feb 10)