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

Re: Email peering

  • From: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Fri Jun 17 06:10:51 2005 

[email protected] wrote:
Similar concept, same scaling problems; it just hides the explicit 
routing


from the user (as would any modern "peering" system, presumably).



<snip>




One way that it COULD be implemented is for people accepting

incoming email on port 25 to check a whitelist before accepting

email. Only operators who have signed a peering agreement would

be on the whitelist. Presumably, the whitelist would be served

up by your regional association and they would have some means
of relaying queries (or synchronizing their database) with the

other 4 regions.




DNSWL -- this is already being done. It is not widely viewed as being in
any way similar to a peering concept. What would be more similar would
be a consortium of large providers providing such a whitelist. That
would be something I would welcome.



I would settle for having aol,msn,yahoo,earthlink,cablevision or any
half dozen providers making public THEIR whitelists.



The problem is that there does not appear to be any incentive for them
to do so -- fee or no fee.



In fact, I would encourage anyone planning on ragging on DNSBL's to put
up AND shut up, namely operate a DNSWL.



Existing public whitelists include:



exemption.ahbl.org

bondedsender.org

habeas.com





To use it with sendmail:



jlewis's http://njabl.org/dnswl.m4

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.mail.sendmail/msg/a26d1cbd1c739626



To use it with spamassassin:



header XXX_DNSWL eval:check_rbl('xxx-firsttrusted', 'xxx.ttec.net')

score XXX_DNSWL -5





Anyone else with a public DNS whitelist?



<snip>