Yahoo Mail Update
hannigan at gmail.com
Sun Apr 13 14:54:42 UTC 2008
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Ross <ross at dillio.net> wrote:
[ clip ]
> > I heartily second this. Yahoo (and Hotmail) (and Comcast and Verizon)
> > mail system personnel should be actively participating here, on mailop,
> > on spam-l, etc. A lot of problems could be solved (and some avoided)
> > with some interaction.
> > ---Rsk
> Why should large companies participate here about mail issues? Last I
> checked this wasn't the mailing list for these issues:
It is an operations list and part of operating a network is delivering
content of protocols whether it be http or smtp.
[ clip ]
> But lets just say for a second this is the place to discuss company
> xys's mail issue. What benefit do they have participating here? Likely
> they'll be hounded by people who have some disdain for their company
> and no matter what they do they will still be evil or wrong in some
They can use an alias if they don't want to publish under their company banner.
> It is easy for someone who has 10,000 users to tell someone who has 50
> million users what to do when they don't have to work with such a
> large scale enterprise.
> I find it funny when smaller companies always tell larger companies
> what they need to be doing.
When lots of smaller companies tell larger companies what to do, they
typically do it. Part of the value of a community like NANOG is for
groups of smaller companies to demonstrate both the positive and
negative aspects of products(routers) or services(mail) of others so
that these other companies (cisco, Yahoo!, et. al.) can learn from us
and either create new products(Nexus 7000) or add features(LISP) and
fixes(autosecure) or (abuse desk).
The fact that a bunch of little companies are pointing out the
operational inefficiencies of large providers (of mail services)
should offer some value to them, and to us. The reason why these
operations are not open and friendly is because they are overhead and
cost of doing business. I doubt you'll see any investments in making
it easier, but if the interaction process was better explained or
simplified, it might be helpful.
Having some provider or group(MAAWG?) explain the new and improved
overhead driven mail/abuse desk would make an excellent NANOG
presentation, IMHO, and it could include a V6 slant like "and to
handle V6 abuse issues the plan is.....".
More information about the NANOG