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?)

  • From: Kee Hinckley
  • Date: Mon Feb 28 12:47:53 2005

At 4:51 PM +0000 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 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.
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.
Kee Hinckley Enterprise Messaging Security and Compliance 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.