North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?]

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Thu Jun 16 10:49:47 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GERu+dGYmGIpBG/PtA8+1OUoNWyXjGURq7qxu582SAKW+ymH3BUDGGRt26Z2Olsai0zk1d0gkyRG6xbiAh4PK7ktkDiYXFQzR4d/daQAa3zB+DVPfo9uh23i7xDfpEVGBhthuZCScp39G2SjW1xEtPx1rPDyLZX469C1gDv00A4=
On 16/06/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[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.
> 
> "Should anyone be allowed to operate an email system? Perhaps not."
> Carl Hutzler
> http://www.circleid.com/article/917_0_1_0_C/

I just don't see where Carl advocates email peering there.

More like "should J Random Luser be given control of mailservers" or
"Should Wile E Coyote be allowed to buy Dynamite and gadgets from the
Acme Company?"

That, and "if you want to operate a mailserver, get a static IP"

--srs
-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian ([email protected])