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

Re: Email peering

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Fri Jun 17 08:49:30 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=BzsEkKtX5olCkFbwneScV2VuoJHmNNTBnfzODmYUHGn+26HhTLyhTT7ikROv127N8HSpPTzPY/RmzsKugUyiabEpLFaRjH4kxx6oU9avNu75UF3vRO8C8BnXZu6+XatESu6S9c8clllgHN179qRBQFrRDs2wpE333S0Eo0EULqI=
On 17/06/05, Joe Maimon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Something that is already being setup, and that tends to add a slight
amount of reputation to any authentication schemes that might be used,
is a "feedback loop"

Kind of like what we do, or what AOL does (http://postmaster.info.aol.com/fbl/)

Not public as such, but well it is as much like peering as anything in
the smtp email world can be. [e&oe gateways to uucp and x400]

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian ([email protected])