[170394] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Mar 27 01:28:54 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5332DF1A.9040001@pari.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:25:37 -0700
To: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:07 AM, 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.....)
Actually, a variant on that that might be acceptable=85 Make e-postage a =
deposit-based thing. If the recipient has previously white-listed you or =
marks your particular message as =93desired=94, then you get your =
postage back. If not, then your postage is put into the recipients =
e-postage account to offset the cost of their emails.
Thoughts?
Owen
