Re: Email peering

["Ben Hubbard" <nanog () eproduct org>]

Michael.Dillon () btradianz com said:

> That's strange because you just finished describing how
> SOME companies are already engaging in email peering on
> a piecemeal basis. And how these companies ARE finding
> this to be beneficial in reducing costs. So please explain
> why my suggestion about widespread email peering agreements
> won't work?

Because I don't think "some companies" == "the entire population of email
users", or even a sizable (ie widespread) part of that population.

A large number of people are fine with the current system, and thus won't
pay more for something else. Me, for example.

Those who are unhappy will pay more for a better solution, and some small
number with really deep pockets may be at that point where they will pay
for something like "business class" email, in addition to the "tourist
class" email they already have.

You seem to repeatedly describe a solution that becomes so big that it (at
least substantially) replaces 25/SMTP. That's what I don't think will
work, or is needed.

> And please don't suggest that webs of trust are not
> scalable. Given the techniques of scaling that we have
> in the 21st century, I simply don't believe that.

I don't think either are relevant to this discussion. In the utility model
you seem to talk about (and that I was talking about) all you care about
is the provider. If you contract with them for traceable, trusted spam
free email, and they give you something less than that, they pay a
penalty. The utility knows, and has a contractual relationship with, each
endpoint, and presumably can keep track of traffic in its own network.
Problem solved.

And the whole thing doesn't need to scale, because there are a severely
limited number of companies that would be willing to pay the costs for
such a service. But they are out there, and one might be able to make a
business out of it.


Best,
Ben