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

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


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:

To use it with sendmail:


To use it with spamassassin:

header XXX_DNSWL eval:check_rbl('xxx-firsttrusted', '')
score XXX_DNSWL -5

Anyone else with a public DNS whitelist?