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
objection.
* 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
most...
https://scontent.fhlz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/118984848_10158758280448988_8560408895957059983_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=VvSoKwD8SqkAX8hIeXE&_nc_ht=scontent.fhlz1-1.fna&oh=69fc9c56a2e95fabe5cb637ba294ab35&oe=5F7F5EB4
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
graphic.
[1] - Tin Foil Hat time.....
D
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
Richmond
Christchurch, New Zealand
Mobile/Telegram: + 64 21 114 0699
www.bowenvale.co.nz
