At 0:34 -0400 4/30/03, Ken Hirsch wrote:
From: "Kee Hinckley" <nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com>
At 7:48 PM -0400 4/29/03, Ken Hirsch wrote:
>Well if there really are ISPs that don't provide SMTP service, you
>can contract with
>someone else to do it. There may be a slight expense, but it
would be pretty
I'm sorry. You need to go off and look at real world email use
before you blithely make statements like that. Pandora's box is
open. People run their own mail servers. You aren't going to put it
back. Put some rational restrictions on them, yes. But you aren't
going to take it away or suddenly charge them thousands of dollars.
It's a one-line change to a Sendmail configuration to forward all mail through
another SMTP server. It's no big deal. It's not a hardship. We don't need
hundreds of thousands of SMTP servers doing point to point connections.
You're missing lots of issues, like all the sites that aren't at the end of
a whomping fast Internet connection... the big messages dribble in over the
slow link and local access is decoupled from link speed. When I put up my
first home Linux server many years ago, it was on a demand-dialed line and
it batched out the locally-gathered mail every 30 minutes.. the ISP was
an MX secondary for inbound mail.
Further, why should an independent organization's e-mail policies be subject
to the wholly unrelated policies of an intermediate party? Should we also
proxy all web serving and retrieval through the ISP too? Shall we ask the ISP
to maintain our e-mail accounts? Do we then have to trust the ISP to store
all these messages? What about privacy?
Since there will be hundreds of thousands of SMTP servers no matter how
loudly anyone here complains, there is little point in trying to shout
against the wind in this way.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg