nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internet Email Services Association
From: Chris Edwards <chris () eng gla ac uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:12:23 +0000 (GMT)
Michael.Dillon () radianz com wrote: | The key thing here is that there is some kind of contractual agreement | between the second tier and the core members. If the second tier breaks | the agreement, their email flow is summarily cut off. You can do that | with contracts. Yup. As you've mentioned, we already have a mechanism for peering between providers - it's called BGP. Is it too much to ask for BGP peering contracts to include requirements to deal with abuse ?
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)