You hugely misinterpreted my mail. I'm not saying that spammers
should have standing.
I'm also not saying that people who want to violate their corporate
email policies are people we care about.
What you seem to be ignoring is the second and greater order effects
of what you propose. Because you make a way of expressing a certain
policy available, you will find that people prefer that policy to
policies they cannot express. Because people do not like spam, you
will find that will find they consider solutions that allow them to
get less spam.
It is appropriate and necessary for the IETF to consider the second
As an example, the IETF probably should not standardize something that
will be claimed to be a discriminatory tool for spam unless it
actually happens to be such a tool.
You also seem to believe that I think Sender ID and SPF are bad ideas.
Perhaps you know more than I do; I haven't made up my mind for SPF.
While I have reservations about DKIM, I did raise my hand at the BOF
saying I believe the work should be chartered.
Ietf mailing list