There's no reason why one couldn't build a comparable model for mail,
with the SMTP speciality service provider offering SMTP transit to a
base of trusted customers. This comparatively small number of SMTP
speciality provider would then maintain good relations (peerings) with
the
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thousands of bilateral BGP peering contracts are most
definitely comparable to the email peering that I am
proposing.
Dude, it's 2005. You can put down the X.400 crack pipe now.
Why does fixing the SMTP email architecture by
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Todd Vierling wrote:
There are far too many SMTP machines already deployed out there -- we're not
talking thousands; here it's tens to hundreds of thousands worldwide -- to
It's actually millions. And I'm not just pulling that number out of
someone's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today, if Joe Business gets lots of spam, it is not his
ISP's responsibility. He has no-one to take responsibility
for this problem off his hands. But if he only accepts
incoming email through an operator who is part of the
email peering network, he knows that
There are, however, three very big problems. First, it forces people to
pay for services that they don't pay for today.
Businesses often pay, not for services, but for accountability.
They want someone else to take responsibility for a problem
even if it costs them more money than taking
The thousands of bilateral BGP peering contracts are most
definitely comparable to the email peering that I am
proposing.
Dude, it's 2005. You can put down the X.400 crack pipe now.
Why does fixing the SMTP email architecture by applying some
lessons learned from BGP peering lead
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:32:31AM +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
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
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
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.
Perhaps you have never been involved in BGP peering? Let
me
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Perhaps you have
Far not, I have nothing to add on the e-mail peering hand-waving,
but...
On 2005-06-16, at 11:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
I don't know who these proponents are, that you refer to. However,
in
Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
I don't know who these proponents are, that you
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Todd Vierling writes:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
I don't know who
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
Of course, there's already one application-level messaging
protocol that relies extensively on arranged peerings: Usenet.
Usenet doesn't rely on a *full* N-way mesh of arranged peerings,
it relies instead on a core of fairly well interconnected
backbone or core news sites who've agreed to do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thousands of bilateral BGP peering contracts are most
definitely comparable to the email peering that I am
proposing.
Dude, it's 2005. You can put down the X.400 crack pipe now.
---Rob
Here's a simple mechanism which has not yet been tried
seriously. Email server peering. This means that an SMTP
server operator only accepts incoming mail from operators
with whom they have a bilateral email peering agreement.
This has been tried in the X.400 world. I wouldn't exactly say
18 matches
Mail list logo
