[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

But the real point here is that routing email, is fundamentally no 
different than routing packets, except there is no TTL with email. 
All of the same principles hold.

At 7:40 -0400 2010/10/15, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>On 10/15/2010 12:12 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>If "jack at 3kitty.org" is the example of forwarding you have in mind,
>>that's not how it works.  When I change providers, I move my 3kitty.org
>>service from one provider to another,
>>I do have a bunch of xxx at 3kitty.org mailboxes, and they all must move
>You are emulating a version of exactly the service I described 
>towards the end of my note, modulo the extra forwarding hop. It's 
>key feature is that it is independent of ISPs and it does not 
>require their cooperation.
>However, as you note, all of the mailboxes must move together: 
>granularity is at the domain name level, not the mailbox level.  To 
>get per-user granularity, you have to encode it in the domain name, 
>given the way email routing works.
>The reason you can have "direct" routing, without having to go 
>through a forwarder is that you control the DNS MX record.  In 
>effect that means an MX record per "customer", if not per "mailbox". 
>Again, that's doable today and it is done today.  The challenge is 
>scaling that model up to a mass market.  In effect, it means an MX 
>per user (or maybe per family).  Yuch.
>ps.  I figure you're still unhappy we didn't adopt your encoding 
>scheme when we did RFC 733...
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net