The number of agreements needed in the email world is significantly
higher than what is needed for BGP.
The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
model, with only a few big actors.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Thu 16 Jun 2005, 14:48 CEST]:
I don't know who these proponents are, that you refer to. However,
in my earlier message I quite clearly described a model that allows
for millions of independent email servers organized in roughly
3 levels of hierarchy and I described how it could be done so
that email peering IS NOT LIMITED to a few big actors.
You pour some RIR sauce over your hierarchy of the top five players but
that still makes it a model with only a few big actors.
[..]
This will not prevent spam, but it will provide operators
with the power to shut it off, whenever it occurs. It would
No. Infrastructure will provide operators with that power, legal
agreements will not.
[..]
What is missing today?
Paraphrased: Basically a lot of administrative overhead that will
increase costs of everybody involved with no direct benefit except for
the satellite players providing those new services and those looking
for control over basic infrastructure for whatever reason.
If the BGP peering side of the business can sort out all of
this stuff, then why can't the email side of the business do
the same, or perhaps, do even better?
It's not comparable, as has been explained several times to you.
-- Niels.
--
The idle mind is the devil's playground
