|
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 SenderIDAuthentication......?]
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [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. > > 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 mean like ucbvax? (If you don't know what that means, you have no business talking about Internet e-mail.) Seriously, the mess you're proposing was already done. It didn't scale. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP : ===== People often published compound bang addresses using the { } convention (see glob) to give paths from several big machines, in the hopes that one's correspondent might be able to get mail to one of them reliably (example: ...!{seismo, ut-sally, ihnp4}!rice!beta!gamma!me). Bang paths of 8 to 10 hops were not uncommon in 1981. ===== You're lost in the past. Study history and stop repeating it back to us. -- -- Todd Vierling <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
|