nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 05:44:26 -0500
No, I am not suggesting a return to the UUCP model. If I was then I would have said that. I am suggesting that we apply the lessons learned from the BGP peering model.
I'm skeptical that a model that only sort of works for under 30K ASNs and maybe 1K bilateral peering agreements for the *really* big Tier-1s won't scale to a world that has 40M+ .com domains and probably a million SMTP servers.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Kee Hinckley (Feb 28)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association Douglas Otis (Feb 28)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Michael . Dillon (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers su Stephane Bortzmeyer (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers su Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Michael . Dillon (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association Chris Edwards (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association Michael . Dillon (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Todd Vierling (Mar 01)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association Niels Bakker (Mar 02)