[170321] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lamar Owen)
Wed Mar 26 10:08:04 2014
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:07:22 -0400
From: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbW+S8YNXwhjpBzAL=+sSO0xx+eiMm1qUzP4W-49Dj339Q@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 03/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I would suggest the formation of an "IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,"
> with a system for enrolling certain IP address source ranges as "Active
> mail servers", active IP addresses and SMTP domain names under the
> authority of a member.
>
...
As has been mentioned, this is old hat.
There is only one surefire way of doing away with spam for good, IMO.
No one is currently willing to do it, though.
That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage. No, I don't want it
either. But where is the pain point for spam where this becomes less
painful? If an enduser gets a bill for sending several thousand e-mails
because they got owned by a botnet they're going to do something about
it; get enough endusers with this problem and you'll get a class-action
suit against OS vendors that allow the problem to remain a problem; you
can get rid of the bots. This will trim out a large part of spam, and
those hosts that insist on sending unsolicited bulk e-mail will get
billed for it. That would also eliminate a lot of traffic on e-mail
lists, too, if the subscribers had to pay the costs for each message
sent to a list; I wonder what the cost would be for each post to a list
the size of this one. If spam ceases to be profitable, it will stop.
Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong, and this might all just be a
pipe dream. (and yes, I've thought about what sort of billing
infrastructure nightmare this could be.....)
