[81528] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender IDAuthentication......?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Thu Jun 16 10:48:51 2005
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:18:13 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20050616105620.GC25614@nic.fr>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 16/06/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
> current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
> model, with only a few big actors.
>=20
> "Should anyone be allowed to operate an email system? Perhaps not."
> Carl Hutzler
> http://www.circleid.com/article/917_0_1_0_C/
I just don't see where Carl advocates email peering there.
More like "should J Random Luser be given control of mailservers" or
"Should Wile E Coyote be allowed to buy Dynamite and gadgets from the
Acme Company?"
That, and "if you want to operate a mailserver, get a static IP"
--srs
--=20
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
