[104843] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: amazonaws.com?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Finch)
Wed May 28 11:30:35 2008
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 16:29:55 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B00295E973@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, 28 May 2008, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
>
> > I don't see how, in your preferred replacement email
> > architecture, a provider would be able to avoid policing
> > their users to prevent spam in the way that you complain is
> > 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.
This is different from Amazon's situation how?
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
SOUTHEAST ICELAND: EASTERLY 4 OR 5, INCREASING 6 OR 7. MODERATE INCREASING
ROUGH. RAIN LATER. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
