Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)

Mon Feb 28 11:01:05 UTC 2005

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:35:53 GMT, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com said:

> You misunderstand me. I believe *LESS* red tape will mean
> better service. Today, an email operator has to deal with
> numerous blacklisting and spam-hunting groups, many of which
> act in secret and none of which have any accountability, either
> to email operators, email users or the public.

Actually, most of those blacklisting groups have the *ultimate* accountability
to e-mail operators - if the operators disagree with the way the group does
things, they stop using the blacklist.

I'm making the rash assumption that operators are klooed enough to either not
use a blacklist they don't agree with, or know how to whitelist their disagreements.
If the operator isn't, well.. consider it time for evolution in action.

> I'd like to see all of this inscrutable red tape swept aside
> with a single open and public organization that I have been

And you intend to get enough consensus of goal amongst all these divergent
groups with their differing goals and criteria, how, exactly? Remember that
we as an industru (at least as represented on NANOG) can't even come to an
agreement about port 587 or filtering 1918-sourced addresses. ;)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20050228/efddfa67/attachment.sig>