[74125] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email Complexes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Tue Sep 14 18:50:00 2004
In-Reply-To: <AF28CAE7A7203A43BCF80C9394432C58012A463D@kstlmexc04.corp.chartercom.com>
Cc: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>,
'Mark Foster' <blakjak@blakjak.net>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:48:45 -0400
To: "Hosman, Ross" <Ross.Hosman@chartercom.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 14 Sep 2004, at 17:39, Hosman, Ross wrote:
> Ensuring that email flows freely between our mail complex and other
> top mail
> provider complexes is a support issue correct. Actually setting up the
> system to monitor and to ensure the support people get the data they
> need is
> operations/engineering.
If getting mail from your mail complex is important to remote mail
complex A then talk to remote mail complex A and arrange something. If
remote mail complex A doesn't care, or doesn't return your mail, then
maybe mail complex A doesn't think your mail complex is worth worrying
about (or perhaps you are sufficiently notable that it's worth blocking
mail from you without generating bounce complexes).
Unless your mail complex is sufficiently big that remote mail complex
A's customers are going to care (i.e. generate support complex load
above the noise floor) I wouldn't hold my breath complex waiting for
anybody to expend effort to help you with any of this for free.
There isn't really any solution complex you're going to magically find
from the NANOG list complex beyond the suggestion complex that has
already been put forward (that of purchasing standard retail pop3
mailbox complexes from the other provider complexes you're interested
in, and running text complexes between them and your mail complex.)
Joe
