[77067] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jan 12 13:19:16 2005
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:18:30 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Michael.Dillon@radianz.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF724F416D.4A48D534-ON80256F87.003DEC6C-80256F87.003E9815@radianz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========2D28F052A8D1B09E368C==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Michael,
Whether you like it or not, SPAM is the problem. There are legitimate
uses of anonymous email. I, for one, think that a web of mail peering
agreements would be detrimental to the situation, not helpful. Yes, people
should have the option of authenticating emails they send, and, end users
should have the option of rejecting unauthenticated messages. That's all
there today. There's still lots of work to do on the UI and many=20
improvements
to be made in the "smooth" interoperation of the various standards, but,
the base capabilities exist.
As an example, I run a mail server for a number of non-profit
organizations. I do this for free. It runs on the mailserver I maintain
for my household. I'm able to do that because I'm not having to pay
someone for an email peering agreement, but, instead, am able to deliver
messages directly to the MX of the receiving party.
Do you really think we need SMBGP? I think not.
Owen
--==========2D28F052A8D1B09E368C==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFB5Wn6n5zKWQ/iqj0RAkiTAJ9k0OaspwlPhFjTqqJ2OeUF6qMh4ACfYrft
I6poeo7P4OvFOm8r8EhT374=
=i6Tg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========2D28F052A8D1B09E368C==========--
