[81545] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com)
Fri Jun 17 06:00:58 2005
In-Reply-To: <87k6ku9cqr.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:00:19 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> > The thousands of bilateral BGP peering contracts are most
> > definitely comparable to the email peering that I am
> > proposing.
>
> Dude, it's 2005. You can put down the X.400 crack pipe now.
Why does fixing the SMTP email architecture by applying some
lessons learned from BGP peering lead people to talk about
X.400, UUCP, Bitnet, Fidonet and other obsolete protocols?
You're right, it's 2005 and we have suffered from email
SPAM for 10 years now, getting worse every year. So when
are we going to admit that SMTP-based email is *NOT* the
superior solution for email that we all thought it was
in 1995?
--Michael Dillon
