On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:51:31 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole > > business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same > > authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25, > > thus negating the need for another port just for mail injection? > > Because that would require providers to act like professionals, > join an Internet Mail Services Association, agree on policies > for mail exchange, and require mail peering agreements in > order to enable port 25 access to anyone.
You might want to check out http://www.maawg.org - at least stateside, that's about the only operational mail admin / antispam conference I know of that's attended by ISP mail system and abuse desk admins rather than assorted vendors. They've got a mtg march 1-3 in San Diego (I'll be there btw) srs > > Unfortunately, providers seem to prefer unilateral > heavy-handed behavior rather than acting professional. > They prefer working out solutions in isolation or in > small closed cabals working in secret in backrooms rather > than working open to public scrutiny in an association. > They prefer to operate in an environment in which > there are no agreed policies for Internet email > exchange rather than having a viable Internet email > system in which everyone works together to add value > to the users. They prefer to play secret games with > blacklists, bayesian filters, hodge-podges tacked onto > the Internet's DNS systems, and other antisocial behaviors > rather than openly saying that people must meet certain > standards in order to *SEND* email. > > The Internet email architecture is based on something > called *SIMPLE* mail transport protocol which its creator > never intended to last for so long. It is a flat architecture > and in common with other flat architectures it does not > scale. If flat architectures did scale on the Internet, > then everyone with a dialup would be running BGP and > announcing their /32 IPv4 route. > > There is no good reason why the large email providers, > most of whom are network operators, do not form an open > Internet Mail Services Association to hammer out the > details of a new email services architecture so that > everyone can sing from the same hymnbook and so that > email just works, seamlessly, everywhere. I strongly > suspect that a new architecture will have fewer weak > points that can be exploited by spammers but spam is > really a secondary problem. The real problem is that > the IETF protocol development process is not the right > place for email service operators to work out operational > frameworks and policies. > > This is an area where the United Nations and the ITU > can bring about *REAL* improvements to the Internet and > I hope that the existence of the WSIS will lead to this. > No, I do *NOT* support the ITU taking on a governance role > over the Internet. What I do support is for the companies > in this industry to wake up and smell the coffee. Nature > abhors a vacuum. Currently we have collectively created > a vacuum which the UN and ITU *WILL* fill if we don't fill > it first. > > --Michael Dillon > > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
