The definition of "unacceptably high false positive rate" can *only*
be defined by the receiver of the email.
It's difficult to do that if the intended receiver of the e-mail never
sees the e-mails that are rejected. The false-positive rate will then
appear to be perpetually zero to the receiver, even if every incoming
e-mail is being discarded.
In the case of spam filtering, it is important to remember that domain
names are cheap. There are companies out there that will host your
domain name and deal with your email for you. You can access email
for your domain either via pop/imap, webmail, or forwarding.
Some domain owners run their own e-mail servers. POP/IMAP, webmail,
forwarding, and the like do not offer the same degree of control as an
independent e-mail server, and they don't create as professional an
Exactly. And that goes for spam filters, firewalls, restricted
mailing lists, and whatever. If the sender doesn't have any rights to
contact the receiver (which usually means a contract), then what they
want is irrelevant.
Explain postal mail, then. Explain telephones.
Letting people without standing have a say is a huge problem.
What is "standing"?
You cannot let people in Iran or the US decided whether a website in
Germany can publish information that they don't like.
Should people in Iran or the US decide whether recipients in Germany
should be allowed to receive e-mail from China?
Ietf mailing list