North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical


  • From: michael.dillon
  • Date: Wed May 28 07:12:00 2008

> I don't see how, in your preferred replacement email 
> architecture, a provider would be able to avoid policing 
> their users to prevent spam in the way that you complain is 
> so burdensome.

To begin with, mail could only enter such a system through
port 587 or through a rogue operator signing an email peering
agreement. In either case, there is a bilateral contract involved
so that it is clear whose customer is doing wrong, and therefore
who is responsible for policing it. It's a different model in
which email traffic follows a chain of bilateral agreements 
from the sender to the recipient. At each link in the chain, 
a provider can block traffic if it does not conform to the 
peering agreement (or service agreement for end users).

Today, an anonymous spammer can obfuscate the source of their email
in a way that an average user can't figure out who to complain to.
In a hierarchical email peering system, only a rogue operator could
do that, and by nature of the system, they can't really be totally
anonymous. After all they have to sign a peering agreement with someone.

--Michael Dillon