[104840] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: amazonaws.com?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (michael.dillon@bt.com)
Wed May 28 07:12:05 2008
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:13:01 +0100
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0805281150470.8138@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: <michael.dillon@bt.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> I don't see how, in your preferred replacement email=20
> architecture, a provider would be able to avoid policing=20
> their users to prevent spam in the way that you complain is=20
> so burdensome.
To begin with, mail could only enter such a system through
port 587 or through a rogue operator signing an email peering
agreement. In either case, there is a bilateral contract involved
so that it is clear whose customer is doing wrong, and therefore
who is responsible for policing it. It's a different model in
which email traffic follows a chain of bilateral agreements=20
from the sender to the recipient. At each link in the chain,=20
a provider can block traffic if it does not conform to the=20
peering agreement (or service agreement for end users).
Today, an anonymous spammer can obfuscate the source of their email
in a way that an average user can't figure out who to complain to.
In a hierarchical email peering system, only a rogue operator could
do that, and by nature of the system, they can't really be totally
anonymous. After all they have to sign a peering agreement with someone.
--Michael Dillon
