[81535] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Vierling)
Thu Jun 16 13:49:52 2005
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:47:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF731176E4.18EC2567-ON80257022.0044D329-80257022.004650D7@radianz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com 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.
>
> I don't know who these proponents are, that you refer to. However,
> in my earlier message I quite clearly described a model that allows
> for millions of independent email servers organized in roughly
> 3 levels of hierarchy and I described how it could be done so
> that email peering IS NOT LIMITED to a few big actors.
You mean like ucbvax? (If you don't know what that means, you have no
business talking about Internet e-mail.)
Seriously, the mess you're proposing was already done. It didn't scale.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP :
=====
People often published compound bang addresses using the { } convention
(see glob) to give paths from several big machines, in the hopes that
one's correspondent might be able to get mail to one of them reliably
(example: ...!{seismo, ut-sally, ihnp4}!rice!beta!gamma!me). Bang paths of
8 to 10 hops were not uncommon in 1981.
=====
You're lost in the past. Study history and stop repeating it back to us.
--
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
