[170322] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laszlo Hanyecz)
Wed Mar 26 10:33:46 2014
From: Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo@heliacal.net>
In-Reply-To: <5332DF1A.9040001@pari.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:33:14 +0000
To: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Maybe you should focus on delivering email instead of refusing it. Or =
just keep refusing it and trying to bill people for it, until you make =
yourself irrelevant. The ISP based email made more sense when most end =
users - the people that we serve - didn't have persistent internet =
connections. Today, most users are always connected, and can receive =
email directly to our own computers, without a middle man. With IPv6 =
it's totally feasible since unique addressing is no longer a problem - =
there's no reason why every user can't have their own MTA. The problem =
is that there are many people who are making money off of email - =
whether it's the sending of mail or the blocking of it - and so they're =
very interested in breaking direct email to get 'the users' to rely on =
them. It should be entirely possible to build 'webmail' into home user =
CPEs or dedicated mailbox appliances, and let everyone deal with their =
own email delivery. The idea of having to pay other people to host =
email for you is as obsolete as NAT-for-security, and this IPv6 SMTP =
thread is basically covering the same ground. It boils down to: we have =
an old crappy system that works, and we don't want to change, because =
we've come to rely on the flaws of it and don't want them fixed. In the =
email case, people have figured out how to make money doing it, so they =
certainly want to keep their control over it.
-Laszlo
On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>=20
>> [snip]
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
> ...
>=20
> As has been mentioned, this is old hat.
>=20
> There is only one surefire way of doing away with spam for good, IMO. =
No one is currently willing to do it, though.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.....)
>=20
