On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well
> > 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
> 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 *rea
> >Because that would require providers to act like professionals,
> >join an Internet Mail Services Association, agree on policies
> >for mail exchange, and require mail peering agreements in
> >order to enable port 25 access to anyone.
>
> Nice in theory, but I don't think it would scale. In e
At 4:51 PM + 2/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole
business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same
authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25,
thus negating the need for another port just for mail
[ This discussion should be moved to Spam-L. ]
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:35:53AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You misunderstand me. I believe *LESS* red tape will mean
> better service. Today, an email operator has to deal with
> numerous blacklisting and spam-hunting groups, many of which
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:35:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> You misunderstand me. I believe *LESS* red tape will mean
> better service. Today, an email operator has to deal with
> numerous blacklisting and spam-hunting groups, many of which
> act in secret and none of which have any accountability
> > Unfortunately, providers seem to prefer unilateral heavy-handed
> > behavior rather than acting professional. They prefer working out
> > solutions in isolation or in small closed cabals working in secret in
> > backrooms rather than working open to public scrutiny in an
> > association. They
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole
> > business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same
> > authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25,
> > thus negating the need for another port just
And what's an even stranger secret is that MAAWG members get to pay
double the registration fee of non maawg members :) Now that's
openness for you ...
Come on in .. it is the nearest thing to nanog that I've seen for mail
ops people in the NA region (+ quite a lot of the world).
--srs (I like
On 02/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You might want to check out http://www.maawg.org - at least stateside,
>
> I'm uncomfortable with two aspects of this group.
> First is it's anti-abuse stance. I would prefer to
> see a group that was focussed on services, i.e.
> providing the best emai
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Fri 25 Feb 2005, 18:13 CET]:
> Unfortunately, providers seem to prefer unilateral heavy-handed
> behavior rather than acting professional. They prefer working out
> solutions in isolation or in small closed cabals working in secret in
> backrooms rather tha
> You might want to check out http://www.maawg.org - at least stateside,
I'm uncomfortable with two aspects of this group.
First is it's anti-abuse stance. I would prefer to
see a group that was focussed on services, i.e.
providing the best email service possible to end-users.
The second thing is
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:51:31 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole
> > business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same
> > authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25,
> > thus nega
> I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole
> business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same
> authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25,
> thus negating the need for another port just for mail injection?
Because that would require provider
15 matches
Mail list logo
