[77054] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Wed Jan 12 11:01:34 2005
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:59:09 +0100
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF206F5151.5A18CBDA-ON80256F87.004C5C62-80256F87.004DC854@radianz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>>> for some reason people are unwilling to imagine an email
>>> system in which an ISP will only accept incoming messages
>>> from another ISP with which they have an existing
>>> agreement, i.e. rather like email peering.
>>
>> You say this as if it's surprising that people are willing to accept
>> communications from people they have not yet communicated with before.
>
> There is a difference between an ISP and a person
> who sends or receives email. I am only suggesting
> that ISPs should make mail peering agreements,
> not individuals. When I wrote a weekly column for
[..]
What if I'm not an ISP but want to limit the amount of third parties
that are involved in delivery of e-mail between me and my friends?
What if I'm one of http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/ ? To whom would I
have to give what favours in order to be part of your mail cabal so I
can communicate with people of different technical aptitudes?
>> The world is not like your gated community.
> I have never lived in a gated community. Also, this
> new email architecture would not be a gated community.
> It may start off as a special service offered by a few
> larger ISPs to business clients, but over time I think
> most people will migrate to it.
(You sound like Dr. Strangelove. That is a bad sign.)
Right now I have freedom of communication. In your vision I would hand
all that over to my ISP for the benefit of giving complete control over
who can communicate with me to them. Why exactly do you think that
would constitute a good deal for me?
-- Niels.
--
The idle mind is the devil's playground
