Re: CBV

In <[email protected]> Meng Weng Wong <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:42:04PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
> | 
> | Meng has produced and published slides which correctly, IMHO, argue that the
> | some of the cost burden of email needs to be shifted from the recipients to
> | the senders.  At the same time, he has argued that CBV's are too costly and
> | that major providers would likely not buy into any scheme that relies on
> | CBV's.
>
> Meng is probably wrong about that --- major providers *are* doing CBV
> today, eg. Verizon.

Does Verizon really do CBV on each and every email?  I thought they
would just do probes to make sure that you aren't an open relay and
such.

I went through my email logs and couldn't find a single case of
sending or receiving a non-spam email from verizon, so I can't tell.
Lots of spam though.



> today, eg. Verizon.  So CBVs are obviously not too expensive for major
> providers to do, especially if their mail servers are centralized enough
> to take advantage of clever things like memcached.

Well, I have used CBV off and on for the last year or two.  Right now
it is off because of problems with Yahoo Groups failing and it was
easier to turn CBV off than excempt Yahoo.

So, I'm not anti-CBV, I just know that I've run into quite a few
email-clueful people who are.



-wayne