[170423] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Buettner)
Thu Mar 27 10:00:43 2014
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:58:12 -0600
From: Scott Buettner <sbuettner@frii.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <911CEC5C-2011-4C8D-9CC1-89DF2B4CB2C1@heliacal.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is totally ignoring a few facts.
A: That the overwhelming majority of users don't have the slightest idea =
what an MTA is, why they would want one, or how to install/configure=20
one. ISP/ESP hosted email is prevalent only partially to do with=20
technical reasons and a lot to do with technical apathy on the part of=20
the user base at large. Web hosting is the same way. A dedicated mailbox =
appliance would be another cost to the user that they would not=20
understand why they need, and thus would not want. In a hypothetical=20
tech-utopia, where everyone was fluent in bash (or powershell, take your =
pick), and read RFCs over breakfast instead of the newspaper, this would =
be an excellent solution. Meanwhile, in reality, technology frightens=20
most people, and they are more than happy to pay someone else to deal=20
with it for them.
B: The relevant technical reason can be summarized as "good luck getting =
a residential internet connection with a static IP"
(If your response includes the words "dynamic DNS" then please see point =
A)
(Also I'm just going to briefly touch the fact that this doesn't address =
spam as a problem at all, and in fact would make that problem=20
overwhelmingly worse, as MTAs would be expected to accept mail from=20
everywhere, and we obviously can't trust end user devices or ISP CPE to=20
be secure against intrusion)
Scott Buettner
Front Range Internet Inc
NOC Engineer
On 3/26/2014 8:33 AM, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
> 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 yo=
urself irrelevant. The ISP based email made more sense when most end use=
rs - the people that we serve - didn't have persistent internet connectio=
ns. Today, most users are always connected, and can receive email direct=
ly to our own computers, without a middle man. With IPv6 it's totally fe=
asible 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 breakin=
g 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 app=
liances, and let everyone deal with their own email delivery. The idea o=
f 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 gr=
ound. 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 d=
on'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=
=2E
>
> -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:
>>> [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 "Act=
ive
>>> 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 eith=
er. 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 e=
nough endusers with this problem and you'll get a class-action suit again=
st 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 t=
hat insist on sending unsolicited bulk e-mail will get billed for it. Th=
at would also eliminate a lot of traffic on e-mail lists, too, if the sub=
scribers had to pay the costs for each message sent to a list; I wonder w=
hat the cost would be for each post to a list the size of this one. If s=
pam 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 infrast=
ructure nightmare this could be.....)
>>
>
