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......?]

  • From: Todd Vierling
  • Date: Thu Jun 16 13:50:36 2005

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 :

  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]>