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: Niels Bakker
  • Date: Thu Jun 16 11:27:27 2005

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 protected] [Thu 16 Jun 2005, 14:48 CEST]:
I don't know who these proponents are, that you refer to. However, in my earlier message I quite clearly described a model that allows for millions of independent email servers organized in roughly 3 levels of hierarchy and I described how it could be done so that email peering IS NOT LIMITED to a few big actors.
You pour some RIR sauce over your hierarchy of the top five players but that still makes it a model with only a few big actors.

This will not prevent spam, but it will provide operators with the power to shut it off, whenever it occurs. It would
No. Infrastructure will provide operators with that power, legal agreements will not.

What is missing today?
Paraphrased: Basically a lot of administrative overhead that will increase costs of everybody involved with no direct benefit except for the satellite players providing those new services and those looking for control over basic infrastructure for whatever reason.

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.

	-- Niels.

                             The idle mind is the devil's playground