Email peering

Fri Jun 17 10:09:42 UTC 2005

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>>Similar concept, same scaling problems; it just hides the explicit 
> 
> routing
> 
>>from the user (as would any modern "peering" system, presumably).
> 

<snip>

> One way that it COULD be implemented is for people accepting
> incoming email on port 25 to check a whitelist before accepting
> email. Only operators who have signed a peering agreement would
> be on the whitelist. Presumably, the whitelist would be served
> up by your regional association and they would have some means 
> of relaying queries (or synchronizing their database) with the
> other 4 regions. 
> 

DNSWL -- this is already being done. It is not widely viewed as being in 
any way similar to a peering concept. What would be more similar would 
be a consortium of large providers providing such a whitelist. That 
would be something I would welcome.

I would settle for having aol,msn,yahoo,earthlink,cablevision or any 
half dozen providers making public THEIR whitelists.

The problem is that there does not appear to be any incentive for them 
to do so -- fee or no fee.

In fact, I would encourage anyone planning on ragging on DNSBL's to put 
up AND shut up, namely operate a DNSWL.

Existing public whitelists include:

exemption.ahbl.org
bondedsender.org
habeas.com

To use it with sendmail:

jlewis's http://njabl.org/dnswl.m4
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.mail.sendmail/msg/a26d1cbd1c739626

To use it with spamassassin:

header XXX_DNSWL eval:check_rbl('xxx-firsttrusted', 'xxx.ttec.net')
score XXX_DNSWL -5

Anyone else with a public DNS whitelist?

<snip>