Consolidation of Email Platforms Bad for Email?

Don Gould don at
Wed Sep 9 00:36:08 UTC 2020

I find this question interesting (obviously because I'm responding to 
the list) and have done for decades.

Providing a reasonable email solution has become more and more complex 
while public perception is that email should be, and is, free.

I see lots of sides to this debate, some have already been covered by 
many of you already.

* Stuff has to be secure

* When stuff becomes insecure it starts to cause headaches for others.

* Keeping stuff secure gets harder and harder

* Customers want more and more features

* Customers should pay for some features/service

* Some IT folk are standing up systems to help others reduce costs - 
again causing headaches for others

* Some IT folk have set up expensive systems, funded by data mining and 
not customers.

* Some IT folk simply object to data mining - some folk act on that 

* There's a lot of 'activism' in the email space and has been for a very 
long time.

* Some of the 'big providers' take some of the heat out of the activism, 
which only winds up some IT folk even more.

* Knowledge and skills with people who can, and will, set up small 
systems is thinning as demand is growing.

* Some want to grow and drive others to rise up their skills.

* Some of those "drivers", I think [1], 'attack' learners, not unlike 
throwing the Apollo crew in a rocket simulator, hoping they will rise up 
their skills.

* With limited revenue, and constant 'driver training', some eventually 
abandon the game.

* Some view that driving training is important if you want to have skin 
in the game, but quickly forget their time is funded and they're not 
funding idealism.

* Some see their lunch being taken by a rise of good 'free' software.  
Some react by [1] driving more updates, features and improvements 
'help', which just overwhelms small operators.

* Some had no choice but to stand up small systems but 'now free 
offerings' have empowered them to abandon the space.

* Some have no thought around the issues, others simply don't care - 
some days there are just bigger fish.

Personally, I identify with some of these issues, and perhaps there's 
more, but it's the 'fish' question that right now connects with me the 

In a country of 5 million people, this graphic says we have ~18,000 
people waiting for social housing.  The idealist in me has turned it's 
attention, and while I still operate my own mail systems (mainly because 
I like to able to back it up and add capacity more quickly and I have 
trust issues with big providers changing the rules mid-stream), I to am 
leaning closer and closer to calling time...

...anyway, thanks for your eye balls, I'm off to put some paint on a 
building ready to launch a community housing trust to address that 

[1] - Tin Foil Hat time.....


On 2020-09-09 05:25, Barry Shein via NANOG wrote:
> This is being portrayed a little too "either/or", that if you get spam
> etc from $BIGEMAIL you, service provider, block them.
> What goes on is multi-layer spam blocking using various tools rather
> than host/server blocking except as a last resort.
> So we'll block/toss/etc a lot of the malmail from $BIGEMAIL w/o
> generally blocking their servers.
> If we get a huge attack we have thresholds at which point we might
> block them for two hours (whatever) hoping it stops on its own or
> $BIGMAIL stops it.
> But those are pretty high thresholds and obviously can cause problems
> for our customers in delayed email but so can our mail servers being
> pounded on. Those $BIGMAIL delivery servers have a lot more computrons
> than we do.
> Aside: What's astounding to me is how little any of this has changed,
> other than consolidation perhaps -- remember when AOL's servers
> pounding you with spam could bring you to your knees? I do -- in over
> 20 years.

Don Gould
5 Cargill Place
Christchurch, New Zealand
Mobile/Telegram: + 64 21 114 0699

More information about the NANOG mailing list