[81541] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe St Sauver)
Thu Jun 16 16:06:39 2005
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe St Sauver <JOE@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
To: bortzmeyer@nic.fr
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"bortzmeyer@nic.fr"
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Of course, there's already one application-level messaging
protocol that relies extensively on arranged peerings: Usenet.
Usenet doesn't rely on a *full* N-way mesh of arranged peerings,
it relies instead on a core of fairly well interconnected
"backbone" or "core" news sites who've agreed to do feeds with
each other, as well as to feed downstream "leaf nodes" (either
on a for-fee commercial basis, or gratis as part of a regional
consortia or whatever).
To receive traffic or originate traffic, a leaf node doesn't
need to peer with every other news server, it just needs to do
feeds with a couple of upstream core sites to insure that it has
reasonable coverage and redundancy.
Spam isn't much of a problem on Usenet anymore because peers who
tend to have spam issues tend to clean them up or get depeered
or shunned...
There's no reason why one couldn't build a comparable model
for mail, with the SMTP speciality service provider offering
"SMTP transit" to a base of trusted customers. This comparatively
small number of SMTP speciality provider would then maintain
good relations ("peerings") with the comparatively small
number of major ISPs. Oh wait -- there are a variety of folks
who are already specializing in doing that sort of thing --
it's just that most folks don't need to buy that sort of
service (yet).
Regards,
Joe St Sauver (joe@uoregon.edu)
University of Oregon Computing Center
