|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so fewmail providers support Port 587?)
At 4:51 PM +0000 2/25/05, [email protected] wrote: Nice in theory, but I don't think it would scale. In essence you are asking for a return to the UUCP model, where if you wanted to send mail on the network you had to have a deal with someone. The problem isn't agreements, the problem is that there are borders at which people will not be willing to block, even if there is bad behavior. After all, there's nothing stopping ISPs from blocking port 25 passing through their networks now. But, every time someone tries a blanket block of (for instance) China, or even appears to do so, there's a huge outcry. If you create an organization to do that, you'll not only have an outcry, you'll have a target for legal action (restraint of trade?). That kind of thing needs government level action. It's highly unlikely to happen, and it's far from clear that we would want it to.> I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the wholebusiness 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 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. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagegate.com/ Enterprise Messaging Security and Compliance http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
|