Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?]

[Todd Vierling <tv () duh org>]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> > You're lost in the past.  Study history and stop repeating it back to us.

> Although I agree that email peering is a seriously bad idea, I don't
> think that the analogy to uucp is correct.

You're right -- I left out the routing table bit, which also existed some
time ago.  BITNET used the bitnet.links file; here's an old one still
accessible for viewing:

    http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/reference/net-directory/host-tables/bitnet.links

Similar concept, same scaling problems; it just hides the explicit routing
from the user (as would any modern "peering" system, presumably).

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv () duh org> <tv () pobox com> <todd () vierling name>