why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition

Lamar Owen lowen at pari.edu
Wed Mar 26 14:07:22 UTC 2014


On 03/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I would suggest the formation of an "IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,"
> with a system for enrolling certain IP address source ranges as  "Active
> mail servers", active IP addresses and SMTP domain names under the
> authority of a member.
>
...

As has been mentioned, this is old hat.

There is only one surefire way of doing away with spam for good, IMO.  
No one is currently willing to do it, though.

That way?  Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.  No, I don't want it 
either.  But where is the pain point for spam where this becomes less 
painful?  If an enduser gets a bill for sending several thousand e-mails 
because they got owned by a botnet they're going to do something about 
it; get enough endusers with this problem and you'll get a class-action 
suit against OS vendors that allow the problem to remain a problem; you 
can get rid of the bots.  This will trim out a large part of spam, and 
those hosts that insist on sending unsolicited bulk e-mail will get 
billed for it.  That would also eliminate a lot of traffic on e-mail 
lists, too, if the subscribers had to pay the costs for each message 
sent to a list; I wonder what the cost would be for each post to a list 
the size of this one.  If spam ceases to be profitable, it will stop.

Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong, and this might all just be a 
pipe dream.  (and yes, I've thought about what sort of billing 
infrastructure nightmare this could be.....)



More information about the NANOG mailing list