I think that considering that the time to deploy a new mail system will take longer than deploying IPv6 ... it make sense to deploy both together, I mean a new mail system WITH IPv6, possible using IPsec. I think it will be even faster than if we try to do now the deployment of IPv6, and tomorrow the deployment of the "new" email system ... It could be also a nice value added for IPv6, that could help on the deployment. I had this idea in my mind since a long time ago ... we just need to sit down and make out of it a nice architecture ! Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Robinson" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Paul Vixie" <paul@xxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:08 PM Subject: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement > Quoting Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > _New_ services get created in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of > > reason. However changing an existing, popular service is subject to > > very different concerns than a new service. In particular, it is > > subject to careful attention to preservation of the installed base. > > I think the point Paul Vixie was making was that saying we would discuss the new > protocol at all was not likely to happen. Already there is a mailing list over > at IMC for "mail-ng" where a lot of good ideas are being throw around. I expect > somebody is going to sit down and start writing code one day, and release it. > It will work over the existing infrastructure (e.g. use MXes from DNS records, > etc.) and address many of the concerns people have. If it does it well, it will > propogate and be used by more and more sites. There will be hook-ins for old > SMTP (in the same way that there were hook-ins for UUCP when SMTP came along), > and it will begin to propogate. > > I very much doubt that the IETF will be in charge of any aspect of it. > > What is important, is that we ensure that commercial interests that effectively > hands control of the mail infrastructure to a body with a commercial objective > does not happen. Ignoring such schemes (a la Microsoft and Yahoo!) will not > work - it will just make the IETF irrelevant. > > Like it or not, it's time for all of us to get very serious, very quickly about > a replacement for SMTP. There is a clear need, the user requirements are > starting to firm up, and it's make or break time. > > > Facile assumptions that we will blithely move an installed base of 500 > > million people, to a new set of protocols, reminds me of a cliche > > We will not move anybody. We will provide a specification, programmers will > produce the code, ISPs and Software vendors will do the moving if their > customers request it. > > > Switching 1/2 billion people requires quite a lot of force and time, > > and so do the hundreds of thousands of implementors and operators who > > have to make it happen. They need clear and compelling incentives for > > the considerable energy it will take and discomfort it will cause. > > Is it just me, or is this just the IPv6 conversation again, but with "Mail" > replacing "IP"? > > > So far, claims that smtp needs to be replaced, to fix spam problems, > > fail to provide anything more compelling than some strong emotions. > > The IMC list is producing some good ideas. I was due to collate them all into > one big document, but time has got the better of me, as has the several hundred > (maybe, thousand?) messages I need to go through to get all the ideas > captured. > > > Let's remember that no action to date has reduced the global level of > > spam. So folks need to be a tad circumspect when calling for massive > > infrastructure change for which there is no basis to guarantee > > results. > > Statistics have a reputation you know. It's impossible to put an accurate figure > on the amount of spam sent at a global level. Even if you could, that's not the > same figure as the amount that ends up in user's inboxes (some gets 550'ed, > some gets marked for deletion and filtered). We don't know the precise figures, > we can only guess. And we know that as a percentage, the signal-to-noise ratio > is pretty poor, from personal experience. > > However, in my inbox, I get less spam confronting me on a daily basis than I did > 6 months ago. My spam folder has grown considerably, but my inbox is relatively > clean. The problem is, the techniques I've used to make that so are beyond most > users, and it would seem, most ISPs. > > -- > Paul Robinson > ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.