[81468] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sthaug@nethelp.no)
Mon Jun 13 05:33:47 2005
To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:10:06 +0100"
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:32:31 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> Here's a simple mechanism which has not yet been tried
> seriously. Email server peering. This means that an SMTP
> server operator only accepts incoming mail from operators
> with whom they have a bilateral email peering agreement.
This has been tried in the X.400 world. I wouldn't exactly say it
worked well - and I, for one, have no desire to return to X.400
style email peering.
> Bilateral agreements have been shown to scale quite well
> whether you look at BGP peering or the world of business
> contracts. In any case, the fundamental need here is that
> for somebody to notify the email administrator that is
> sending spam and for that administrator to act immediately
> to cut the flow.
The number of agreements needed in the email world is significantly
higher than what is needed for BGP.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
